Project Management
Project and programme management services that establish clear solution governance, so a programme has clear ownership and decision making, not just a delivery team working in isolation.
Two-week increments. Real users in the room from week one. We translate business requirements into systems people actually use and we stay until they do.
Sized to the scale of the programme, from a single team rollout to a phased deployment.
Project and programme management services that establish clear solution governance, so a programme has clear ownership and decision making, not just a delivery team working in isolation.
Solution and technical architecture to provide a sound base for implementation, sized to the scale of the programme rather than overbuilt for a single team rollout.
Translate business requirements into detailed technical designs. Map workflows, data models and system components before a single line of configuration gets built.
Design intuitive interfaces that drive user adoption. Prioritise seamless navigation so users interact effortlessly, because a technically correct system that nobody wants to use has not actually solved anything.
Delivery is judged on whether people use the system afterwards, so that is what we organise the programme around.
You see working software early and often, rather than waiting months for a single delivery date.
Design and UI/UX work happens with the people who will actually use the system, not just stakeholders signing off in a meeting.
Adoption is the actual measure of success here, not deployment.
We apply our AI First methodology to discovery, design and build so implementation moves faster without cutting corners on governance.
Project and programme management is lean by design, built to keep decisions moving rather than adding overhead.
Specific to the Implement practice.
The main drivers are how many workflows and integrations are in scope, how much data needs migrating, and how much custom design and UX work is needed versus using Microsoft's defaults. Because delivery happens in two-week increments, cost typically tracks the number of increments a programme needs, scoped during Architecture and Design rather than fixed upfront.
Each increment delivers a working, usable piece of the system, not just a design document or a demo, reviewed with real users before moving to the next one. This keeps requirements honest: gaps between what was asked for and what's actually needed surface early, rather than at go-live.
By involving real users from week one, not just stakeholders, and by measuring success against usage after go-live rather than technical delivery alone. If adoption is lagging, we treat that as part of the engagement to fix, not something for the client to solve alone afterwards.
Because delivery runs in two-week increments, changes get absorbed into the next increment instead of derailing a plan that runs for months. That's one of the advantages of incremental delivery over a single big-bang implementation.