Two things happened at the same time.

Three vantage points on the same problem.

A2go's executive team came at supply chain from three directions and kept arriving at the same conclusion: the technology was finally ready, and the way it was being applied was going to fail most companies.

Mike Romeri

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & FOUNDER

the operator

BACKGROUND

• 40 years in supply chain · Harvard MBA
• 20+ years Partner at PRTM (now PwC)
• Contributed to SCOR as a practitioner at PRTM
• Co-founded OPS Rules with MIT's David Simchi-Levi — acquired by Accenture, 2016

Mike spent his career inside supply chain operations, and he kept finding the same gap in every one of them. The insight side kept improving — better forecasts, better analytics, better dashboards, reports arriving sooner every year. The decision side didn't move. A disruption would surface on a Monday and still take days to resolve, and the resolution came out of a conference call, a planner's instinct, and a spreadsheet rebuilt by hand. Afterward, nobody could reconstruct why that call was made, what got traded away, or whether it was the right one.

The shortage was never insight. It was everything that happens after it.

Speed up the reporting into a decision process that is still manual, still partly guesswork, and still not auditable, and all you have bought is an earlier view of a problem you can't act on any faster.

Cesar Oliveira

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

the builder

BACKGROUND

• 20+ years ERP transformation
• MBA, University of Colorado Boulder
• Led 25+ enterprise ERP go-lives: SAP, Oracle, Epicor
• Architect of the A2go Decision Intelligence Platform (ADIP) — built natively on Databricks; leads the 32-person Brazil team

Cesar has spent years deploying ERP and enterprise platforms across manufacturing, distribution, food, and industrial operations. Systems of record execute and track reliably; they were never built to reason across one another. And no company arrives at its stack by design — it accumulates, one platform at a time, plus whole environments inherited through acquisition. What companies need is not another system. It is AI that connects not just the siloed data but the decisions that span it: the tradeoffs, the guardrails, the priorities that determine which order gets protected.

Coordination is the product, and every pain point has to be tied to a business outcome before anyone builds anything.

He designed the A2go AI Assessment around exactly that — start from the decision that is costing money, name the outcome it should move, then coordinate across forecasting, planning, inventory, and allocation to move it.

Stephen Hutson

CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER & CO-FOUNDER

the engineer

BACKGROUND

• 9 years Principal, PwC-PRTM
• Contributed to SCOR while at PRTM
• Nominated Distinguished Engineer at IBM; ran Watson AI and Commerce Analytics Services for APAC
• Designed A2go's data orchestration layer
• Architected the composable agent framework — deploys above any ERP, no replacement

Stephen saw the commoditization coming before most of the market did. The models themselves were going to become a utility — every supply chain organization would eventually have access to the same ones, at roughly the same cost, with roughly the same capability. Whatever advantage existed was never going to live there. It was going to live in what surrounds the model: the data a specific decision requires, drawn from wherever it already sits, and what accumulates around that decision afterward.

The model is the commodity. What you build around it is not.

Routine decisions get automated outright. The ones that need a person arrive as explainable recommendations with the projected outcome attached, in front of a knowledge worker while there is still time to act. Every decision is logged and auditable. And every decision becomes part of the record of how your company actually decides — which is what makes the next recommendation better than the last. That part cannot be commoditized, because no vendor has it.

Why we built ADIP the way we did.

Three routes are on offer today. Buy a prebuilt platform and conform to it — its data model, its workflows, your teams re-engineered around it before any of it reaches the numbers. Hire a long consulting engagement and fund it for years against an outcome nobody can name at the start. Or take what you already run and make it work better.

Two ask you to change how you work. The other starts with how you already work.

We built ADIP for the third. It orchestrates only the data a decision actually needs — from the ERP, the planning tool, the warehouse system, the supplier feed, wherever it sits today — and puts interoperable agents on top of it that coordinate across forecasting, planning, inventory, and order promising. The recommendation reaches the person who owns the call with the tradeoffs and the projected outcome attached, while the order can still be re-promised, the shipment re-routed, the buy adjusted.

That is the whole design decision: your pain points set the sequence, not a vendor's roadmap, and the first one is live in weeks.

Built from the pain points in.

Our team came out of supply chain, with depth in industrial manufacturing, agriculture, and food and protein processing — multi-plant, multi-ERP, high-SKU, thin-margin environments where a scheduling decision has a number attached to it by end of week.

That's why the agents are organized around pain points rather than industry standard workflows. We built for the four pillars of supply chain and the pain points within them.

FORECASTING & PLANNING  ·  OPERATIONAL PLANNING  ·  OTIF OPTIMIZATION  ·  SUPPLY & INVENTORY OPTIMIZATION

Adopting AI shouldn't put the business on hold.

Every company with a physical supply chain is going to build AI capability. That part is settled. What is still open is whether building it has to mean a consulting engagement measured in years, a data program measured in millions, and a return that arrives after the people who approved it have moved on.

For a $20B enterprise, that path is survivable. For a $500M manufacturer it isn't — and that company has the same volatility, the same fragmented systems from the last three acquisitions, and considerably less room to absorb a bad quarter.

The incremental path isn't the compromise version for companies with smaller budgets. It's the better path at any size, and it happens to be the only one available at some of them.