Lesia Yanytska moves fast — and leads even faster. As Chief Product Manager at Luxoft USA, she oversees multicultural teams across five continents, driving the development and implementation of cutting-edge Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES). When she’s not guiding large-scale digital transformation in factories worldwide, she’s mentoring the next generation of women in tech, contributing to top industrial tech journals, or spending time with her family.
Under Yanystka’s stewardship in product development, Luxoft, is transforming the global manufacturing industry with its AI-powered MES. Lesia’s professional philosophy is as clear as compelling: “AI-driven MES tech is great, but it is only as great as the people who build it, create it, and channel it in the right direction.” For Yanytska, AI in smart manufacturing isn’t about replacing human roles but augmenting them and ensuring that the human worker remains at the center.
In this exclusive interview, CEO Magazine had the privilege of speaking with Lesia about her remarkable journey in product leadership in industrial tech. We’ll explore her views on Industry 5.0, culture as a product, inclusive leadership, and inclusive innovation. Additionally, we’ll discuss prospects and Lesia’s vision for the future of factories beyond automation.
Lesia, you’ve led digital product teams across the globe. What does leadership look like when you’re not relying on hierarchy?
When leading digital product teams, it is important to eliminate any siloes and foster trust and a sense of shared ownership. Therefore, for me, non-hierarchical leadership is about connecting people and ideas.
This means removing obstacles and weaving the network to ensure the free flow of information across geographical time zones. It means teams in India struggling with integration can receive help from teams in the USA that have solved similar problems. My role, as leader, is to facilitate this knowledge transfer.
You’ve said “culture is a product.” How do you build that culture inside engineering-led environments?
[Nodding.] That’s a good question. I approach culture as any other product, such as user research or iteration. Within an engineering-led environment, we also need to design cultures that are enjoyable for our engineers. I build this culture through fostering shared experiences. These range from shared problem-solving principles and communication styles to shared spaces for creative problem-solving and celebrating big wins. What I have learned is that a culture of psychological safety makes engineers feel valued and equipped to do their best work.
So, how do you make strategic decisions when your manufacturing clients, engineering teams, and business stakeholders have conflicting priorities?
Frankly speaking, conflicting priorities are inevitable in engineering environments, especially when there is a lack of visibility on the project scope, time, and cost. The manufacturing client may request “faster reporting”, which pressurizes the engineering teams in “optimizing performance” and business stakeholders in “differentiating competition.”
What has worked in the past is fostering a pragmatic conversation between the three. When a client wants something new, I show them the three constraints – scope, time, and cost – and ask them which constraint to adjust. In most cases, I observe that the discussion shifts from “what the client wants” to “what is possible and most important now?”
If you asked me, I believe that what’s important is allowing the stakeholders to engage in realistic discussions. This helps identify the north-star problem to be resolved, ensuring stakeholders can settle into rational and strategic goals.
I saw that you got featured in the Industry 5.0 newsletter for August for your article on the Human-in-the-loop [HIL] design in MES. Congratulations. What role do you think the human-in-the-loop design plays in high-stakes industrial software?
[Smiling] Thank you. HIL means that humans remain at the heart of the systems without replacing them. In the high-stakes industrial software, HIL ensures the MES delivers timely alerts and visual dashboards to human operators to make informed and real-time decisions. My vision, our vision has always been, “AI should be a partner rather than a replacement.”
Looking at your work, it’s impressive that you've built MES from scratch. In your view, what's the biggest misconception about developing a platform from the ground up versus integrating off-the-shelf solutions?
[Pausing] Hmm. I can say that the biggest misconception is cost. Most manufacturing companies assume that it is costlier to build their own systems from scratch compared to going for an off-the-shelf solution. However, I have to tell them, “Look, upfront costs for off-the-shelf solutions may be cheaper, but in the long run, customization, licensing fees, and integration complexity will cost you.” It takes realistic conversations to convince manufacturers that building from scratch provides them a platform they can evolve with their business without overreliance on vendors.
I might also add that there is a misconception about the time it takes to implement the systems. Of course, off-the-shelf systems have a lower time-to-market compared to custom systems. However, when you factor in the customizations needed, you find that the system has to be significantly rebuilt anyway, but under the constraints placed by the vendor. Risk is also another misconception. Manufacturers may consider off-the-shelf systems less risky because of the support from vendors. However, this also introduces the reliance on external vendors.
Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 are two buzzwords in global manufacturing. Could you tell us how Industry 5.0 is fundamentally different from Industry 4.0, and why human-centricity is so important in Industry 5.0?
At the basic level, they are different. Industry 4.0 asks, “How can we make machines smarter?” while Industry 5.0 is concerned with “How can we make humans more capable?”
The shift is truly about moving away from simply collecting data to using AI to augment human capabilities. I would say Industry 5.0 is not only focused on productivity and efficiency, but also on creating value. “Human-centricity is core in Industry 5.0.”
We are now designing systems that work in harmony with humans for long-term value creation.
In one of your recent journal articles, you talked about MES becoming a carbon control tower. What would that look like, and why is it so important now? Please take us through.
Look at it this way: A carbon control tower would look like a real-time, comprehensive ESG dashboard within the MES that tracks carbon intensity (CI) at a granular level, from a single machine to an entire production line.
It would provide a real-time view of the factory’s carbon footprint, allowing human operators to implement immediate intervention. This is important because it moves carbon reporting from an annual exercise to a real-time, actionable priority. With increasing regulatory pressure and investor scrutiny, carbon reporting is key. As a carbon tower, the MES makes carbon impact as actionable and visible as any other product.
This is quite an interesting conversation on carbon tracking. If I were to ask further, based on your expertise, what other ESG metrics or goals, beyond carbon, do you see becoming integrated into real-time MES? How does this affect a company's bottom line and brand credibility?
I would point to water usage and waste generation as key areas. I see MES in manufacturing companies tracking water consumption and waste stream composition in real-time, empowering them to identify areas where further improvements are necessary.
Being able to track consumption translates to lower costs, higher efficiency, and improved brand reputation based on the company’s commitment to sustainability. Additionally, using MES to track the traceability of supply chains and worker safety can also contribute to the brand’s credibility as it shows its commitment to employee well-being and social responsibility.
It's quite interesting, and I hadn’t realized MES could be used for employee safety and well-being. Let’s move forward. In your opinion, how can MES evolve to serve not just operations but also sustainability goals and regulatory needs?
Well, I think this evolution can happen by integrating ESG data streams from sensors and utility providers, allowing the MES to track and report such metrics in real-time. The MES can evolve to serve sustainability goals through predictive analytics, where the systems can now predict future carbon footprint and provide suggestions for optimization. It shifts from historical carbon assessment to predicting future emissions to align with regulatory needs.
Let’s move away from the tech side of things. Now, onto gender representation. What is your take on and advice for women who want to lead in sectors where they’re still underrepresented — like manufacturing software?
I would advise them to prioritize their expertise. Based on my experience, gender becomes irrelevant once you are excellent and can demonstrate an understanding of the technology and its operational realities. When you are in a position of genuine expertise, proving yourself becomes secondary. I would also suggest forming alliances with people who judge you based on your results rather than demographics. Having mentors and sponsors is a good thing and can open doors for you to get the recognition you deserve and the opportunities you need to grow. Lastly, embrace your unique expertise and don’t try to be like everyone else.
Quite some useful tips for women leaders. If you would sum it up, what’s a common piece of advice you give to young women entering STEM fields, especially when they face skepticism about their technical abilities?
The single most impactful advice I would give is “Let your work speak for itself.” Show your results. Deliver high-quality work, and the skeptics will fade away. To add to that, I encourage young women to find their tribe, people who will always support them when faced with adversity.
As we come to a close, what principle guides your leadership when things get uncertain — whether in product direction or team dynamics?
[Nodding] I would say two principles rather. The first is trust. I trust my team to do the best work and make the right decisions. I give them the autonomy to navigate uncertainty and provide necessary support for success. The second is transparency and shared problem-solving. When my teams face problems, I bring them together to understand what we know, what we don’t, and what we need to learn. I have learned that when we are honest and transparent, this builds trust and helps my teams feel like they are part of the solution.
Any last words?
I’ve learned that trust and clarity matter more than control — and that great products are built not just by teams with skill, but by teams with safety and purpose.
Thank you for spending time with us, Lesia.
