Supervisor view
Failed items and follow-up visibility
A supervisor sees what was submitted, what failed, and what still needs follow-up — without chasing paper, texts, or end-of-shift cleanup.
Operations automation · warehousing, distribution & 3PL
Someone on your team is re-keying paperwork that software should be handling.
I spent 24 years inside operations, and I build the automation myself. You're not getting a strategy deck from someone who's never run a shift — and you're not getting a dev shop that builds what it's told without knowing whether it's the right thing.
Start with a $750 operations automation audit: five business days, a ranked list of what's actually worth automating, each item costed against your own labor numbers. The full $750 credits toward a build if you go ahead within 30 days.
Warehousing · 3PL · Freight
Findings in 5 business days
$750 credited toward a build
Built by an operator
Live preview
Example: equipment check · switch roles →
Assigned check
Required
Forklift Asset 1
Daily Forklift Pre-Use Checklist
Fluid levels / leaksPass
Horn / lights / backup alarmFail
A failed item stays visible for supervisor review instead of disappearing into paper or a text thread.
Supervisor review
TodayWalkthrough
Submitted1
Open issues1
Configured assets1
Setup groups3
Inspection queue
Forklift Asset 1Out of service
Follow-up needed
Horn / lights / backup alarmFailed during pre-use check.
Manager snapshot
Simple oversight1
Submitted checks
1
Open issues
Built, not configured
This is software we built for a real workflow — the same way a build engagement ends up in your environment.
What we automate
Four jobs that cost you hours a week, and that nobody in the building defends.
Every operation we look at has at least two of these running. They're expensive, they're boring, and no one's identity is attached to protecting them — which is exactly why they're the right place to start.
Inbound document intake
BOLs, PODs, packing slips and carrier invoices arrive as email attachments and scans, and someone keys them into the WMS or TMS by hand. Universally painful, and measurable in hours.
The report someone builds by hand
End-of-shift summary, daily ops report, weekly KPI deck. A supervisor assembles it out of three systems every single day, and it's the same assembly every time.
Customer status inquiries
“Where's my load?” answered one at a time, all day, by someone doing the same three lookups before writing the same reply.
Compliance and inspection records
Inspection logs, training records and audit prep living in binders and spreadsheets — records that exist, but can't be retrieved on demand when someone asks.
Who you're hiring
An operator who builds — not a consultant, and not a dev shop.
Almost nobody selling AI automation into logistics has actually run an operation, and almost nobody who has run one can build the fix. That combination is the whole offer: I diagnose it because I've lived it, and I build it because I can.
The clearest example
Your supervisor spends 40 minutes a day writing the end-of-shift report. Mine writes itself.
Every operation runs on some version of that report, and in every one of them a person writes it. The system I run my own business on doesn't work that way: each process logs what it did, what changed, the current state, and what's still open — into one shared daily file, automatically. The next shift picks up cold without asking anyone.
It's the same shape as your report
What happened, what changed, where things stand, what's still open. The difference is that assembling it isn't a person's job.
Nothing gets remembered wrong
The record is written as the work happens, not reconstructed at the end of a shift from memory and three browser tabs.
I'll show you today's, live
Not a slide deck of one. On a call I'll open the real thing and show you the entry that wrote itself this morning while I wasn't looking.
Proof of build
Working software, not mockups.
These are real screens from an inspection and accountability system we built — the compliance-records workflow from the list above, running end to end. They're here for one reason: to show that when a build is scoped, something real gets delivered.
The example shown is a daily equipment check, but the shape is the point: required → completed → failed → followed up. A build engagement produces software like this for whichever workflow the audit identifies, running in your environment. This is evidence of capability, not a product for sale off this page.
Built
Admin setup
Assets, locations, users, and rules
Real operating data configured behind it: locations, assets, users, checklist rules, roles, access levels, and a review path.
Field workflow
Checklist completion with one failure
The person on the floor picks the unit, completes the required items, and submits a record that a supervisor can actually see.
Roll-up
Oversight without digging
A manager gets the short version: what's been submitted, what's open, and what's still outstanding.
Tool accountability
Who has what, and what's overdue
A second workflow in the same system: a running log for shared tools and equipment, kept separate from the daily checklist.
Data handling
Records you can export
Your records shouldn't feel trapped. Export and handover are part of how a build is delivered, not an upsell.
The floor doesn't work at a desk
Mobile view
Same check on a phone
Built for the device the work actually happens on.
Current capacity
One build at a time. On purpose.
A build is two to three weeks of real work, and I'd rather finish yours than juggle three. Audits run in parallel — the build queue does not.
Audits: booking now
Five business days from the working session to your ranked findings. This is the part you can start this week.
Builds: one active
If the queue is full when your audit lands, you'll be told a real date rather than sold a slot that doesn't exist.
No procurement theatre
You're dealing directly with the person doing the work. There's no account manager between you and the build.
Pricing
Three rungs. Start on the first one.
Nobody should buy a build before someone has looked at the operation. So the first step is small, fixed-fee, and worth having on its own — and it pays for itself against the build if you continue.
Start here · 5 business days
Operations Automation Audit
$750
A 90-minute working session, plus you send real artifacts: a week of the relevant inbox, a sample of the forms, the report someone builds by hand. You get back a ranked list of automatable workflows — each with the hours currently going into it, what that costs at your loaded labor rate, and what it would cost to build.
- Intake questionnaire 24 hours ahead, so the session isn't spent on basics
- 90-minute working session with the people who do the work
- Ranked findings, each costed against your own numbers
- A straight answer on what's not worth automating
- The full $750 credits toward a build if you proceed within 30 days
Paid rather than free on purpose: a free audit attracts tyre-kickers and costs three days. If the audit finds nothing worth building, I'll tell you, and you still keep the findings.
Then · 2–3 weeks
First Automation Build
$3,500–6,500
One workflow, end to end, running in your environment. Fixed scope, fixed price, and one success metric written into the agreement before any work starts — the kind you can check: “this goes from 12 hours a week to under 30 minutes.”
- One workflow — scope discipline is the whole game
- Success metric agreed in writing up front
- Runs in your environment by default
- 50% up front, balance on the metric
Priced against what the audit found, never against a price list. If a workflow is eating 12 hours a week, the build is arithmetic rather than a negotiation.
Later · only once something's live
Ops Automation Partner
$1,000–2,000/mo
Run it, watch it, extend it, and add the next workflow each quarter. Offered only after a build has been live and working for 30 days — there's nothing to retain before that.
- Monitoring and fixes on what's already running
- The next workflow each quarter
- Direct access, no ticket queue
- Month to month
Optional. Plenty of clients take the build and run it themselves — it's built to be handed over.
How it works
From first call to something that actually runs.
01
Intake, 24 hours ahead.
A short questionnaire so the working session isn't spent establishing what you already know.
02
The working session.
90 minutes with the people who actually do the work — not just whoever signs. You send real artifacts: the inbox, the forms, the hand-built report.
03
Ranked findings, five business days.
Every automatable workflow, with hours going in, what that costs you, and what a build would cost. Including the ones I'd leave alone.
04
Pick one.
We agree the single workflow and write down the success metric before any build starts. Fixed scope, fixed price.
05
Build it in two to three weeks.
In your environment, with the people who'll use it seeing it before it's finished rather than after.
06
Prove it, then decide.
Measured against the metric we wrote down. Then you either take it and run, or keep me on for the next one.
Fit check
This works for some operations and not others.
Good fit
Worth a conversation if…
- You run 15–200 people and have no in-house developer.
- Someone is manually re-keying data from PDFs, emails or scans into a WMS, TMS or ERP.
- A person assembles a recurring report by hand, every day or every week.
- Inbound customer or carrier email is triaged and answered one at a time.
- Your compliance and inspection records live in binders and spreadsheets, and audits are stressful.
Not a fit
I'd tell you to look elsewhere if…
- You have an IT department that will procurement-gate this for nine months.
- You want a strategy deck and a roadmap rather than something that runs.
- You need an off-the-shelf enterprise suite on day one.
- You're looking for the cheapest hands to build a spec that's already written.
- $750 to find out what's worth automating is a real obstacle — then the build was never going to happen.
Where it runs, and who owns it
The automation lives in your environment, not behind my login.
Default is your infrastructure. That keeps your operational data where your policies already cover it, and it means what I build doesn't quietly become something you rent from me.
Your environment by default
Runs on your cloud or your on-prem. Hosting by me is possible, but it's a deliberate decision we make together, not the default.
Records you can read without me
Data stays in open, readable formats and exports cleanly. If we stop working together, nothing gets held hostage.
No per-seat metering
What I build for your operation is used by your operation. I'm not counting logins.
No compliance overclaim
Better records make audits easier, but this isn't legal advice and it isn't a compliance guarantee. Your safety and compliance owners still own checklist content and retention.
Also from LineSight Ops
Two things you can just buy, no conversation needed.
Separate from the automation work: self-serve products that stand on their own. Useful if you're not ready for an engagement, or the problem you have today is smaller than a build.
Digital product · AI governance
$59–$199
“Covered.” — The 2026 AI Policy Kit
A done-for-you AI acceptable-use policy and governance toolkit for small business: ready-to-use templates, vendor-risk checklists, an incident playbook, a state-law quick reference, and an interactive policy generator. Built for the 2026 wave of AI rules.
- The Kit — $59 · one business, one-time
- Kit + Updates — $99 · stay current as laws change
- Agency / white-label — $199 · unlimited clients
Instant download · self-serve
$29
Operational Visibility Starter Guide
A practical guide and printable worksheets for working out what's required, completed, missed and still open across your workflows — using the tools you already have. The cheapest possible first look.
- The five-question diagnostic framework
- Scorecard, process-map and gap-finder worksheets
- A 15-minute weekly review routine
Questions
What people ask before booking.
Why is the audit paid?
Because a free one costs me three days and attracts people who were never going to build anything. $750 filters for real intent, and it comes straight back off the build if you proceed within 30 days.
What if the audit says don't build anything?
Then that's the finding and I'll say it plainly. You keep the ranked list either way, and you've spent $750 instead of $5,000 finding out.
Where does the automation run?
Your environment by default — your cloud or your on-prem. I can host it, but that's a decision we make deliberately rather than the default.
Are you replacing our WMS or TMS?
No. Almost never the right move. The work is usually about the manual handling around those systems — getting documents into them, and getting reports out — not replacing them.
We don't have a developer. Is that a problem?
That's the normal case, and it's who this is for. It does mean handover matters, so it's built to be run by your team and documented for the person who inherits it.
How do I know you can actually build it?
Fair question, and the reason the proof section exists. On a call I'll also show you the system I run my own operation on, including the shift report that writes itself.
Next step
Find out what's worth automating, for $750.
Five business days from the working session to a ranked list with your own numbers on it. Bring the report someone builds by hand — that one's usually the fastest win.
What you'd bring
A week of the relevant inbox, a sample of the forms, and the recurring report a person assembles.
What you'd get back
Every automatable workflow ranked, with hours going in, what it costs you now, and what a build would cost.