Electromechanical Subsystem Technical Lead (Next‑Gen Wearable)

DEXCOM

Tags: System Architecture • Electromechanical Integration • Build Readiness • Validation Strategy • Cross‑Functional Leadership

One‑line summary

I owned the electromechanical interface design and execution across process + build readiness + validation + execution, delivering hardware and evidence that enabled major program milestones.

Context & scope

This was a confidential next‑generation wearable program where the goal was to prove end‑to‑end system feasibility while simultaneously establishing repeatable build and validation workflows. One of the highest risks sat at the electromechanical interface layer (sensor‑connect to a new electronics architecture), where small interface or process issues could block integration and readiness progression. My scope spanned interface execution, build readiness, risk‑based validation, and secure firmware/data workflows needed to generate decision‑ready evidence across bench and in‑vivo readiness workstreams.

Public images of G7 CT scan and person wearing G7. Courtesy of Becky Stern and Diabetic wearhouse. These images are for example to show the complexities of CGM systems and do not represent this project

Outcomes (fast facts)

~2,000 sensor‑connected assemblies delivered for integration, internal testing, and preclinical/early human studies.
Removed a critical feasibility bottleneck by stabilizing and transferring a Dexcom‑sensitive process to enable higher‑volume builds and readiness progression.
Enabled the first end‑to‑end system demonstration of CGM functionality for this wearable through secure Commercial firmware integration under cybersecurity/IP constraints.
Generated decisive learnings that shaped architecture direction (sterilization strategy, alternative insertion architecture risk, and early down‑select inputs).

What I owned

Interface & process ownership: developed and released the sensor‑connect process + fixturing for a new electronics architecture and established repeatable execution.
Build readiness: authored inspection criteria + manufacturing documentation and trained technicians to enable consistent accept/reject decisions and scalable throughput.
Risk‑based test strategy & execution: defined what must be proven (and when) to retire integration/clinical risks; owned key readiness tests (e.g., pullout, multi‑day fatigue, early glucose‑solution feasibility).
System workflow execution: coordinated firmware/data workflow constraints needed for system demonstrations while protecting IP boundaries.
Cross‑functional execution leadership: integrated manufacturing, test, firmware, and data‑flow considerations into one coherent technical execution plan, maintaining leadership visibility in a restricted program environment.

I served as Subsystem Technical Lead, owning interface definition, validation strategy, and build readiness for the electromechanical sensor‑connect boundary.

Key decisions enabled (examples)

Confirmed a specific sterilization cycle was required to maintain baseline‑equivalent sensor performance; an alternate cycle was identified as a deviation source.
Identified early performance limitations from a thicker sensor wire requirement tied to an alternative architecture, surfacing risk early to avoid late-stage timeline impact.
Supported study execution/manufacturing/testing that contributed to converging away from a higher‑risk architecture toward a lower‑risk path.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse