13+ years owning how work moves, the last nine-plus at Senior and Director level. Two years of it embedded with Google through Huge. The receipts are below.
One engagement carries this page. Everything else on it is context.
At Huge, on the Google account, Warren planned and led a year-long UI/UX research and design phase exploring the future of Google Search Ads. He directed 4 to 6 designers, working with Google's Search UX Design Director and his team, spanning new ad formats including video.
The seat sat inside the working team. Two years embedded with Google PMMs, strategists, designers, and engineers across three surfaces: tv.google, android.com through the Android 12 launch, and wearos.google.com, with a fixed launch calendar and localization on the line. The job was continuous reprioritization to hit time-sensitive dates without burning the team down, and the engagements were among the agency's most profitable during his time.
There is an older ads receipt too, from the agency side over a decade ago and with him as the producer rather than the author: sales collateral for Google's programmatic and DoubleClick products used globally by field teams, a white paper series on the DoubleClick blog, and 15 animated decks for senior Google executives at the 2014 client advisory board conference; the receipt that matters is the one above.
"Meticulous capacity planning to hit targets across every workstream without burnout. Exceptional communication and problem-solving."
"A team player and problem solver on a complex, multi-part, year-long program. Strong client relationships throughout."
years owning how work moves
years embedded with Google through Huge
Google surfaces on one fixed launch calendar
designers directed on the Search Ads exploration
Annotated format studies were the exploration's working language. This one is abstract on purpose. Select a marker or an annotation to trace the part it names.
The formats here are abstracted. The specifics of the exploration stay with the client, which is how unreleased work should be treated.
Each row is a line from the role description. Each proof is a receipt. Strong where the record is direct, Partial where it is adjacent, stated plainly either way.
13+ years owning how work moves, the last nine-plus at Senior and Director level, and all of it inside design and UX delivery organizations: Beyond, POSSIBLE, Vertic, Huge, Everyrealm, freelance production, and now Dow Jones, where he is the sole UX Program Manager driving the Brand function.
Arizona Public Service at Vertic: a 3-month UX research phase, then an 8-month UX/UI design phase producing a comprehensive design system, stewarded into production with Infosys and 28+ engineers. Moving Brands: a UX/IA audit strengthening NYU Langone's website design system. Dow Jones: content design, UX/UI, and motion design across the event and conference properties.
"A great PM. Diligent on the financial, creative and timing details, and a strong voice on UX and design."
Gary Goldsmith · Design Operations, Meta
Concept to launch, repeatedly, on dates that did not move: android.com through the Android 12 launch, a public immovable date; and at Dow Jones about 8 events and 6 launches in his first 5 months, each a fixed-date go-live with content, UX/UI, and motion on the line.
He owns the brand marketing team's Asana implementation for reporting, capacity, and resource management, and the GE Better Health Study delivered hundreds of media assets with supporting data analysis. He has never held an analyst title, and this page will not pretend otherwise: the receipt is operational reporting, not analysis as a discipline.
Continuous reprioritization at Huge to hit time-sensitive dates without team burnout, and the receipt is on the record: the Hulya G. testimonial pinned to the exploration section answers this row verbatim, from the Google side of the table. In his own tooling, capacity is computed rather than assumed, so an over-capacity week shows up before the work is promised away.
He has planned and managed research phases: the 3-month APS research phase and the NYU Langone UX/IA audit. That is managing research, not partnering with an embedded UXR organization, and the chip stays honest about the difference.
The operating side is strong: on The Row at Everyrealm he owned the Monaverse relationship end to end, through implementation and platform testing to a single coordinated launch, managed vendors across motion and 3D-rendering production, and owned the function's spend. At Huge he tracked burn and spend across the Google properties. At Dow Jones he coordinates freelance support.
The partial part: formal procurement with a sourcing team, and an in-house annual budget through a Finance cycle, are not in the record, so the chip says Partial.
The Huge seat was exactly this muscle: connective tissue between internal executives, Google product marketing managers and strategists, and the designers and engineers doing the work, across three surfaces with one fixed launch calendar. Consensus was the deliverable, every week.
He does not just use the tools, he builds them: Relay, an AI intake in real weekly use, and a resourcing tool where the meeting updates the plan. Both are documented in the systems section below, along with what he deliberately keeps off the page.
The year-long exploration above: 4 to 6 designers, Google's Search UX Design Director and his team, new ad formats including video. It is the reason this page exists, and the two Googler testimonials beside it are its references.
Private tools, not ventures: proof of how he thinks about operating problems. He is not an engineer; he specifies, directs AI agents, reviews, and sends it round again.
Six teams send him planning inputs: subscription strategy, product design, product management, performance marketing, CRM, event marketing. Six spreadsheet formats, thousands of cells, none of it self-serve. Relay is the AI intake he built to absorb it.
It has exactly one user, Warren, weekly, on real planning data, which is the point: it answers to the person accountable for the plan. How it reads and how it chases stays off this page; deciding what to publish is part of the job.
An agreements system he built turns what people commit to in a working session into a reviewed, signed record, so a scope or a hand-off cannot quietly evaporate.
A confidential-sharing system he built lets a team send unreleased work outside the building without losing control of it, with a record of who saw what. Every team he has worked on shared unreleased work on trust; a Search Ads exploration is exactly the kind of work that deserves better than trust.
Built for problems he ran into in the workplace, not as ventures.
The same hour goes wrong in every creative team he has worked in: the resourcing meeting happens, real decisions get made out loud, and then somebody has to remember them and write them up afterwards. The plan drifts until the next meeting rediscovers it.
In the tool he built, the resourcing decision gets made out loud in the meeting, is captured as it happens, and is staged for a one-click yes, so nothing changes unless a human confirms it. Once confirmed, the capacity view and the plan of record update themselves.
Capacity is computed rather than assumed: PTO, standing meetings, and partial weeks come off the top, and an over-capacity week shows up before the work is promised away. The meeting updates the plan, instead of someone updating the plan after the meeting.
A fully built tool, in real weekly use, built to solve a problem in his own role. Used by him for his own planning, not deployed across his employer, and that is a real limitation.
The resourcing hour
In the meetingThe meeting updates the plan, instead of someone updating the plan after the meeting.
"It turned our weekly planning meeting from a doc-readout into a real conversation, and now the conversation updates the board itself."
The posting names the drag it wants AI to absorb: "file setup, mock updates, and stakeholder notifications" for high-stakes reviews. That is the exact layer he already builds for. Relay exists because intake was costing a person's week; the resourcing tool exists because the capacity math was.
What matters is where the hours land. Get the routine running on its own and the team's hours, and his, go to the work that moves the needle, so the program covers more ground than the headcount suggests. The lead's time moves up: to standards, staffing, vendor strategy, and the calls that need judgment.
Two open issues, filed by the candidate against himself, with the migration path underneath.
He has never carried a Google badge. Two years embedded through Huge, inside the working team on three surfaces, is close, and it is still not the same thing as being inside.
The exploration worked the future-formats side of Search Ads. He has not operated the live auction or owned its monetization metrics.
He has spent 13+ years being the other side of this role's phone calls, and the Search Ads exploration means the surfaces, the constraints, and the review culture are already familiar. The live-monetization context is what the first months in the seat are for, and the audit above shows how he reports on a gap while closing it.
Monetization inside Search results runs on a trust budget. The label, the layout, and the review culture are what keep the spending honest, and that is why UX Programs sits at the center of it: the operating layer is the trust function. That is the version of program management he has been building toward, and the exploration was his year inside its subject matter.
The fair question is why he is looking about six months into a role that is going well. He is not running from anything: the Dow Jones work is real and he is doing well at it. The reason is a preference that took thirteen years to get clear, not six months. The Search Ads exploration is the work he still gets asked about, and this role is the operating seat inside the UX org that ships on that exact surface. When the seat you would design for yourself is posted, you apply.
Hypothesis, method, output. The outputs are things the team can veto.
Hypothesis. The review calendar and its inputs explain most of the program's friction.
Method. Sit inside the existing reviews and rituals. Map how files get set up, how mocks move, who gets notified, and where the hours actually go.
Output. A map of the operating layer as it really runs, checked with the people who run it.
Hypothesis. The heaviest routine steps can run on rails without changing who decides.
Method. Pick one review workflow with the leads. Pilot the boring automation first: file setup, mock updates, stakeholder notifications.
Output. One workflow where the routine runs itself and the humans kept every decision.
Hypothesis. What held for one workflow holds across the Search Ads and Organic partner teams.
Method. Write it down as operating standards. Review with Product, Engineering, and UX partners, and adjust to what they push back on.
Output. A cadence the partner teams have already agreed to, and a backlog of what to fix next.
No form. Three ways to reach Warren Velázquez, New York, NY.
Happy to walk through it live if this turns into a conversation. The exploration, the audit, or any of the systems, on real screens.