Vitalii Oborskyi
Head of Delivery & PMO | Author of Uncertainty Architecture | AI Delivery & Governance
Wrocław, Poland
Actions
Vitalii Oborskyi is a Head of Delivery & PMO with more than 20 years in software engineering and technology delivery, including over a decade in leadership roles.
He currently oversees a portfolio of around 25 software projects and more than 120 engineers, working across delivery, architecture, risk, and engineering operations.
His recent work focuses on how AI-assisted development and model-mediated software change the engineering system around them: requirements, evaluation, release criteria, operational control, team knowledge, and long-term maintainability.
Vitalii is the author of Uncertainty Architecture, an open engineering framework for designing and governing software systems whose consequential runtime behavior depends partly on probabilistic model judgment. He writes and speaks about AI engineering, software delivery, agentic systems, and the organizational consequences of increasingly capable development tools.
Area of Expertise
Topics
AI Changes the Delivery System — and the Product Itself
We accelerated code. Not the system.
AI can generate software faster than teams can review, understand, integrate, and recover it. That does not automatically make delivery faster — it can simply move the bottleneck.
But that is only the first change.
When AI moves from the developer’s toolchain into the runtime product itself, teams face a different engineering problem. Consequential behavior may now depend partly on probabilistic model judgment. Requirements become boundaries around acceptable behavior, one green test is no longer sufficient evidence, and release decisions must account for evaluation uncertainty, human authority, fallback, and operational control.
This talk connects both sides of the shift.
We will examine recent evidence on AI-assisted development and separate code activity from delivery outcomes such as stability, maintainability, review capacity, recovery, and team understanding. Then we will look at what teams can actually measure and what emerging countermeasures — spec-driven development, agentic review, repository intelligence, generated documentation, stronger knowledge systems, and disposable implementation — are worth testing.
Finally, we will move inside the product itself: behavioral requirements, evaluation evidence, release criteria, and control loops for systems that rely on model judgment at runtime.
This is not a proposal for a new “correct AI SDLC.” Many of these practices are still hypotheses. The practical question is how to preserve engineering rigor when machine capability changes faster than the surrounding engineering system can adapt.
Please note that Sessionize is not responsible for the accuracy or validity of the data provided by speakers. If you suspect this profile to be fake or spam, please let us know.
Jump to top