We place experienced project managers and business analysts on warehouse and plant software and AI deployments — WMS, WES, MES, ERP, planning tools. Our practitioners have run these operations themselves, so they hold the software to how the floor actually works.
That experience is also why their documentation is worth keeping. Someone who has worked a dock or a line recognizes tribal knowledge when it surfaces: the exception that exists for a reason, the step that prevents a recurring claim. They write it down in a structured, AI-ready form.
A go-live rarely fails on the technology. It fails in the gap between what the vendor configured and how the operation actually runs — and then the people who understood that gap leave.
The vendor's project manager is accountable for deploying their product on schedule. They are not accountable for whether your pick paths make sense, whether your receiving process survives the new workflow, or whether your team can actually run it on Monday. That gap is yours to own — and it is where go-lives go wrong.
The people who understand your operation best are already running it full time. Implementation is a second job requiring skills most operators have only done once or twice. Handing it to your best supervisor either breaks the project or breaks the operation, and often both.
IT documents what the system should do. The floor knows what actually happens — the exceptions, the workarounds, the reasons a step exists. Without someone fluent in both, requirements arrive incomplete, configuration drifts from reality, and the workarounds come back as soon as the consultants leave.
Why the system was configured this way. Which exceptions were deliberate. What was tried and rejected. That reasoning lives in a contractor's head and a scattering of email threads. Six months on, nobody can answer basic questions about their own system — so you hire someone again to rediscover it.
Our network is vetted practitioners who have run plant and warehouse operations, not just projects — people who have stood on a dock at 5am, not only in a steering committee.
Brand-agnostic across what you're deploying: WMS, WES, MES, ERP, planning tools, and AI.
Own the implementation end to end: plan and schedule, vendor and stakeholder coordination, scope and change control, risk and issue management, cutover planning, and go-live readiness. Fluent enough in warehouse and manufacturing operations to challenge a vendor assumption before it becomes a live problem.
What you keep
Translate operational reality into requirements the software can actually be built against. Current and future state process mapping, requirements and traceability, configuration support, data and workflow design, test scripts and UAT, training material. The role that keeps the system aligned to how the floor really works.
What you keep
Need both roles, or a PM now and a BA at design freeze? Engagements are scoped to the deployment, not sold as a fixed bundle.
Our practitioners document as they go, in a deliberate structure. Decisions, process logic, configuration rationale, exceptions, and the reasoning behind them get written down as the work happens — in consistent, machine-readable formats rather than reconstructed from memory in a rushed closeout.
The deliverables are the normal deliverables — process maps, requirements, decision logs, test scripts, SOP source material. What's different is that they're written to be queryable — structured, tagged, internally consistent. They hold up as a reference, and AI tooling can index them when you're ready for that.
This is where the operating background pays off twice. Someone who has run a warehouse or a plant knows a trivial workaround from load-bearing tribal knowledge — the exception that exists because of a customer contract, the sequence that quietly prevents a damage claim, the reason nobody trusts Monday's cycle count.
That material never makes it into vendor documentation. It is exactly what gets written down here. A generic project manager documents the project; someone who has done the job documents the operation.
To be clear about scope: an implementation engagement produces the documentation, not a deployed knowledge base. It lays the groundwork. If you later want that material turned into a live, queryable vault, that's a separate engagement you can choose — and the groundwork means you won't be starting from scratch.
The engagement stands on its own: you get the PM or BA, the project delivered, and documentation that holds up. That is the whole deal — nothing further is required or assumed.
But because the material is already structured, you have an on-ramp if you later want it working harder. Knowledge Capture turns documentation like this into a validated, queryable vault; the KnowledgeBricks Platform is where your team queries it in plain language.
Both are separate engagements, priced separately, entirely optional. You can equally point your own AI tooling at the files.
We walk through the deployment: which system, where you are in it, what your internal team can carry, and where the real operational risk sits. Output is an honest read on which role you need, at what commitment, and when — including telling you if you don't need us.
We match a PM or BA from our network against your system, industry, and operational profile — then you interview them. No blind placement, no bait-and-switch to a junior after signature. If the fit isn't right, we match again.
Your practitioner works inside your project like any other team member: your standups, your vendor calls, your governance. The difference is discipline — deliverables get written to a consistent, structured standard as they are produced, rather than tidied up at the end.
At close you receive the full set — decisions, process maps, configuration rationale, exceptions, test scripts, and training source material — in portable, structured files you own. The practitioner rolls off. The record of how and why your system works doesn't.
Yes. WMS is the most common request, and we also place on WES, MES, ERP, planning systems, and AI deployments. What matters more than the acronym is that the practitioner has run the kind of operation you're deploying into — a WMS go-live in a cold-storage DC is not a WMS go-live in a parts depot.
The vendor's PM is accountable for deploying their product on schedule. Ours is accountable to your operation — whether the pick paths make sense, whether receiving survives the new workflow, whether your team can run it on Monday. We also work for you in a vendor negotiation, not for the vendor.
No. An implementation engagement is a standalone services engagement. You get the practitioner and the documentation, in portable files you own. Knowledge Capture and the Platform are separate, separately priced, and entirely optional — you can point your own AI tooling at the files instead.
A PM if the risk is coordination: vendor management, scope and timeline, cutover, go-live readiness. A BA if the risk is fit: requirements, process mapping, configuration, UAT. Larger deployments usually want both, often a PM from kickoff and a BA from design. We'll tell you honestly on the scoping call, including if you need neither.
It depends on the profile and start date, and we won't quote a number we can't hold. We match against your system, industry, and operational profile, then you interview the candidate. No blind placement and no swapping in a junior after signature — if the fit isn't right, we match again.
Decision log, risk register, current and future state process maps, requirements with traceability, configuration rationale, exception handling, test scripts and UAT results, and training source material — structured, tagged, and internally consistent, in open formats you own. See what you keep.
Tell us where the deployment stands and what your team can carry. We'll tell you which role you actually need — and what you'll still have after we leave.
Scoping calls are a conversation, not a pitch. If we're not the right fit, we'll say so.