You already know something needs to change. This is the step that turns that into a sequence: what to do first, what it should cost, how to explain it to the people who sign the cheque — and whether and when to commission the namespace export, agents, or advisory that follow it.
We take your free diagnostic results and a short structured intake, then turn them into a step-by-step transformation plan: what to fix first, what to fix next, and roughly what each step should cost. You get a document built for a boardroom, not a technical audience — and a clear call on which paid services below (namespace export, agents, advisory) to commission, and when.
| Deliverable | What it does for you |
|---|---|
| Reference architecture | The target data and technology architecture your deployment should follow — mapped to your actual systems, not a generic diagram. |
| The written roadmap | A prioritized, sequenced plan — what to do, in what order, and why — with a rough cost band for each step, in language a board can approve without a translator. |
| Vendor-neutral tool & integrator shortlist | Categories of technology to evaluate and potential integration partners to get quotes from — never a single favorite, and never anyone we're paid to recommend. |
| Quick-win use cases | A short list of early wins to start proving value with stakeholders while the foundation work is underway — not everything has to wait for phase one to finish. |
| A 60-minute readout | A live working session to walk the plan, answer questions, and pressure-test it against your real constraints before anyone signs off on it. |
| A board-ready summary | A short, forwardable version built for the people who weren't in the room — the ask, the sequence, and the payoff, on one page. |
What you do, what we do, at each step — no discovery-phase mystery.
An excerpt from a fictional plant, so you can see the shape of it before you commission one.
| Initiative | Why now | Est. cost band | Depends on |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Connect & collect on Line 4 | Nothing downstream is trustworthy until the data leaves the floor cleanly. | $40–70k | — |
| 2 · Unified namespace + trusted model | Kills the SAP/Excel/MES silos that make every OEE number arguable. | $60–110k | Phase 1 |
| 3 · Real-time plant view | One pane the morning meeting can act on, instead of five dashboards. | $30–50k | Phase 2 |
Sequencing note. AI pilots are deliberately held until phase 4 — after the data is contextualized and trusted. Piloting sooner produces confident, wrong answers and rework.
"Fund phase 1 now: it's the cheapest step, unblocks every later one, and turns numbers nobody trusts into numbers the board can. Full spend is banded and staged — no blank cheque." — the one-line board summary
Instead of a pile of vendor pitches and internal opinions about what to fix next, you have one document that ranks the work, prices it in bands your finance team can sanity-check, and gives you the exact language to bring to the board or the executive team. You use it to greenlight step one, hold vendors to a sequence instead of their sales pitch, and measure progress against a plan you already approved.
A credible, fundable plan needs real inputs — this covers considerably more ground than the free diagnostic. Illustrative examples below; the real one is tailored to your diagnostic results.
| Category | Example question |
|---|---|
| Why now | What's driving this now — and what's already been tried that didn't stick? |
| How work actually happens | Walk us through a typical shift or order, start to finish — where do people wait, guess, or re-key information? |
| What's already automated | How much of your production data arrives on its own vs. gets typed in after the fact? How far do people actually trust the numbers? |
| Systems already in place | What tracks equipment status on the floor today? What holds your production schedule and inventory? |
| Where it gets expensive | Which process costs you the most when it underperforms, and roughly how much? |
| Who'd need to be involved | Who would champion this internally, and how well do teams currently share information with each other? |
| Network & security basics | How separated are your plant-floor and office networks today, and who owns that decision? |
| What you can commit to | What budget band and timeline would your board realistically approve, and who signs off? |
How you'll answer. Once you commission the plan, open the real intake from your account. This is a real intake, not a quick form - expect it to take a couple of business days to answer thoroughly. Some questions are best answered by someone else on your team; delegate freely, a complete answer beats a fast guess.
If you haven't yet run the free diagnostic, start there — it's free, takes about ten minutes, and tells you whether the roadmap is worth commissioning yet. The roadmap is the first paid step after that — something you can hand to a board, a CFO, or a steering committee and get a yes, and the thing that tells you whether, and in what order, to commission the namespace export, AI agents, or ongoing advisory. Nothing past this point is a separate decision; it's execution of what the roadmap calls for.
No subscription, no retainer. You get the architecture, the roadmap, the shortlist, the use cases, the readout, and the summary — then you decide what's next.