A practical proposal after our conversations
I see a strong fit where technical procurement, supplier/NPI work and supply-chain operations meet. If Veo has a role or real need that fits that background, I want to contribute.
If the need is clear, ordinary paid employment is my preferred route. If direct employment is not the right starting point, I can also start through a supported paid route or a short, defined proof period.
Veo-specific open-work proposal · noindex · historical evidence and proposed work kept separate.
Why now
The Senior Buyer process made the fit clearer to me. Rather than simply wait for another opening, I would prefer to contribute on something useful now, learn the Veo-specific supplier, product and operating context through real work, and let both sides build practical evidence from working together.
If a relevant need develops later, Veo would already know how I work, and I would already understand much more of the operating context.
01 / What I bring
The common thread is practical ownership across supplier decisions, technical change, material visibility and production consequence.
RFQs, supplier evaluation and selection, commercial negotiation, alternatives, framework/call-off execution, capacity constraints and supplier-quality recovery across mechanical, electrotechnical/electronics, materials and technical services.
Drawings, BOMs, revisions, prototypes and FAI translated into supplier timing, material exposure, documentation, cost and production-readiness action while technical approval stays with Engineering/Quality.
Forecast/MRP, demand, stock, incoming supply, lead time and ERP/WMS accuracy used to prioritise shortages, alternatives and next actions before buying, expediting, reallocating or escalating.
02 / What makes this relevant at Veo
Veo's public material confirms that the same supplier, hardware and production-readiness interface is part of the current operating model.
Veo currently places Supply Chain close to Hardware and Manufacturing from concept through mass production; its hardware-product work stresses that cost and technical trade-offs become expensive to reverse later; and the public Cam 3 case shows suppliers contributing upstream in design refinement, tooling, materials and production readiness. That is the interface I know: approved technical need -> supplier reality -> material and commercial consequence -> execution -> production readiness.
03 / One real example
Veo chooses the actual problem. The example below only shows the kind of output I would aim to leave.
Example A
Old/new demand, open POs, approved revision, supplier readiness, qualification status and a controlled cutover action list.
Example B
Validate real capacity and backlog, demand alignment, quality/documentation blockers, realistic recovery dates, alternatives and escalation.
04 / If Veo wants to see it in practice
The objective is not to master Veo in three weeks or promise that every hardware problem can be solved in that time. It is to create useful progress on one real problem while giving both sides practical evidence that interviews cannot fully provide.
Confirm scope, technical owner, need, revision, supplier/component context, data sources and decision boundaries. Leave the first readiness/risk view.
Validate supplier reality, stock/open supply, quality/docs, lead time/capacity, commercial terms and credible alternatives. Start the agreed actions.
Work the agreed RFQ, recovery, cutover or supplier action; close what can be closed and make remaining decisions, owners, dates and risks explicit.
05 / Ways to start
The point is not the programme. The point is useful work and, if the fit is right, a real paid role.
If Veo sees a genuine need where my background fits, ordinary paid employment is the cleanest route. That could be procurement/sourcing, supplier or NPI work, supply-chain/operations, or another cross-functional role using the same technical-commercial operating pattern.
If Veo has sustained work and a supported entry route is useful, private løntilskud can provide a real paid employment period while I deepen the Veo-specific context and contribute on live work.
If Veo wants evidence before a longer commitment, use one bounded problem for three working weeks, with a fourth week only if it improves the result or handover.
Official references: STAR · private løntilskud · STAR · virksomhedspraktik.
Next step
If there is already a role or need that matches my background, I would prefer to start there. If Veo wants evidence first, one real problem and a short period of working together can show how I contribute and how quickly I learn the Veo-specific context. If a relevant need develops later, neither side is starting from zero.