WKT Organizational Blueprint

Four Engines, Four Realities

Workshop Document — February 20, 2026

Building on "Manifesto: A Reflection on Leadership and Clarity"

The Core Argument

WKT is not one business. It is four distinct operations under one company brand. Each has different customers, different economics, different risk profiles, different sales cycles, and different definitions of success. Governing them as one creates the exact friction the Manifesto identified.

This document structures WKT around four accountability centres — two growth engines, one support engine, and one R&D function — each with its own leadership, metrics, and operating logic.

WKT is the company brand across all four:

The Accountability Chart

Before we describe each engine in detail, here is the structure at a glance — who owns what, and how it connects.

Each box in this chart requires a fundamentally different type of leader. This is not about talent — it's about fit. The right person in the wrong box creates the exact friction the Manifesto described. The sections below describe each engine in depth, starting with the leadership profile each one demands.

Decision Rules

Technology Decision Rules

Engine 1: WKT Publishing (Sell)

What It Is

The growth engine that takes WKT's published training content and brings it to market. Publishing owns all go-to-market activity for WKT's own content — across multiple channels and vertical market lanes.

The Lanes

Lanes are vertical markets where WKT publishes and sells content. Each lane may have its own digital brand and storefront, but they are all operated by Publishing:

• Workplace safety / OHS
• Driver safety / fleet compliance
• Security guard licensing
• Cannabis retail certification
• Real estate licensing
• Financial services / exam prep
• Future lanes as R&D ships new SKUs/ontologies

Opening a new lane doesn't require a new team or division. It requires Publishing to apply its playbook to a new vertical.

The Channels

Content Development (Publishing-Owned)

Publishing owns the creation and maintenance of all training content — the product it sells:

• Course design & instructional design — building new courses for each lane
• Ontology development — competency frameworks received from R&D, adapted for market
• Content maintenance — keeping courses current with regulatory changes
• Multimedia production — video, interactive elements, assessment design

Platforms Publishing Uses (Owned by Support)

Publishing is a customer of the platform team, not the owner. It submits requirements and priorities to Support's product management function:

• ALF — adaptive learning for exam prep and pre-license storefronts
• SCORM Engine — course packaging for enterprise B2B delivery
• RapidLMS — multi-tenant storefronts for standard course delivery
• Marketing technology — automation, analytics, SEO, email funnels (Publishing-owned)

Business Drivers

• Revenue per lane — each vertical must justify its existence
• B2B/SCORM pipeline — enterprise licensing deals
• Conversion rate — traffic → purchase → completion
• Customer acquisition cost — marketing ROI per lane
• SKU profitability — harvest or retire underperformers
• New lane velocity — how fast can Publishing commercialize what R&D ships?
• Channel partner revenue — reseller/partner contribution

Critical Roles & Skills

Engine 2: WKT Institutional (Operate)

What It Is

Managed training programs where WKT operates under contract for government regulators, associations, and credentialing bodies. WKT is trusted with delegated, non-optional responsibility — often the sole provider in a walled garden under the partner's brand.

Current portfolio: Responsible Service BC (LCRB), AGCO mandate, go2HR, AHEIA, Alberta Digital Literacy, and future contracts.

How WKT Markets to Institutional Customers

Institutional business development happens under the WKT brand directly. Senior leadership engages regulators and associations as We Know Training — the trusted infrastructure partner. This is relationship selling, government procurement, and RFP response. Not digital marketing.

Why It's Fundamentally Different from Publishing

Platform Needs (Served by Support)

Institutional is a customer of the platform team, with specific requirements:

• RapidLMS stability and compliance — the backbone. Change-managed releases only.
• Partner reporting and dashboards — automated SLA monitoring, compliance reporting
• White-label configuration — partner branding within strict parameters
• Learner Verified — identity and attendance tracking for regulated programs

Business Drivers

• Contract retention rate — losing a government contract is catastrophic
• Contract expansion — adding services to existing relationships
• New contract pipeline — long-cycle BD, government procurement
• SLA compliance — uptime, response times, reporting accuracy
• Margin per contract — managed services must cover true cost

Critical Roles & Skills

Engine 3: Business Administration (Support)

What It Is

Shared services that keep WKT functioning as an enterprise — including the product/platform development team and shared technology infrastructure that all divisions depend on.

Why Product & Platform Live Here

This is a deliberate choice. The platforms — RapidLMS, ALF, Learner Verified, SCORM Engine — serve both growth engines. Putting the product/dev team inside either engine means the other loses influence over the roadmap. Putting it in Support means:

• The platform team serves both engines equally, just like finance does
• Neither engine "owns" the platform — they're both customers of it
• The Integrator governs priority conflicts between engines (not a GM protecting turf)
• Platform stability is naturally prioritized — that's Support's DNA
• Clear intake process: each engine submits requirements, product management prioritizes with Integrator oversight

Business Operations

• Finance & Accounting — AR/AP, payroll, budgeting, reporting
• HR & People — hiring, onboarding, benefits, compliance
• Legal — contracts, IP, regulatory compliance
• Executive Administration — scheduling, coordination, board support

Product & Platform Team

• Product Management — roadmap, requirements intake from both engines, prioritization
• Platform Development — engineering for RapidLMS, ALF, Learner Verified, SCORM Engine
• QA & Release Management — testing, change management, deployment coordination

Shared Infrastructure

• Hosting, servers, cloud infrastructure
• Security, SOC 2 Type II compliance
• Database administration
• CI/CD pipelines, deployment infrastructure
• Uptime monitoring and incident response

Critical Roles & Skills

Engine 4: WKT Invent (R&D)

What It Is

The pre-commercial investment arm. Builds future capabilities and new SKUs/ontologies. When something is ready, it ships to Publishing to be commercialized — or to Institutional if it enhances managed programs.

How the Handoff Works

This is why Invent doesn't worry about commercialization. When a new SKU or ontology is proven, it ships to Publishing — which opens a new lane or enhances an existing one. Publishing is the machine that commercializes. Invent is the machine that creates. They don't mix.

Current Portfolio

• ALF (next-gen capabilities) — advanced adaptive learning beyond current production
• Oliu™ (ProofNetwork) — verifiable credentials, JV with Credivera. Will eventually spin out as a separate company.
• New ontologies — competency frameworks for new verticals (= future Publishing lanes)
• Assessment innovation — proctoring, identity verification, competency models

Key Rules

• No revenue pressure — R&D has a budget, not a sales target
• Sheddable resources — contractors, project-based, capitalized investment
• Sandbox only — never experiment on production systems
• Clear handoff criteria — ship when proven, not when perfect
• Oliu™ has its own trajectory — destined for spinout
• Reports to Visionary (Chris) — not the Integrator

Critical Roles

The Automation Thesis

Target Headcount (Directional)

Needs validation against current headcount and revenue.

The Case for Change: Why This Matters Now

Before we workshop this, let's be direct about why this reorganization is necessary — not as a theoretical exercise, but as a practical response to real problems WKT is experiencing today.

The problems this solves

What happens if we don't change

• The same friction persists — capable people working hard with diminishing clarity
• Platform bottleneck gets worse as both engines grow
• Publishing can't move at market speed → competitors close the gap
• Institutional trust gets eroded by changes driven by Commercial needs
• R&D output has no clear path to market → investment without return
• Leadership burnout as the integration burden grows with the business

What this is NOT

This is important to state clearly:

• This is not a performance critique. The Manifesto made this clear — effort is not the problem. Classification is.
• This is not four independent companies. It's one company with four clearly governed accountability centres.
• This is not about adding headcount. The automation thesis actually reduces total headcount while increasing output per person.
• This is not a wholesale restructuring overnight. It's a phased evolution that starts with shared understanding and moves to structural change.
• This does not eliminate anyone's value. It clarifies where that value is best applied.

Workshop: Let's Pressure-Test This Together

Everything above is the proposal. What follows is the exercise. This is where we make it real — or break it and rebuild it.

The goal of this session is threefold:

1. Stress-test the model — throw red flags, edge cases, and "what about..." scenarios at it
2. Feed in real company data — headcount, revenue, current pain points, people, technology realities
3. Evolve the document in real-time — Kay will update the blueprint as we workshop, so we leave with a working version that reflects our actual company

Round 1: Does the Four-Engine Split Hold Up?

Before we go deeper, the fundamental question: are these the right four boxes?

• Is there work at WKT that doesn't fit neatly into Publishing, Institutional, Support, or Invent?
• Does anything feel misclassified? (e.g., CannSell straddles Publishing and Institutional — where does it live?)
• Are there hidden dependencies between engines that this structure breaks?

🚩 Raise your red flags here. If the foundation is wrong, nothing built on top will work.

Round 2: People — Where Does Everyone Sit?

Let's map the current team to this structure. For each person (or role), we need to answer:

• Which engine do they primarily serve today?
• Which engine should they serve in this model?
• Are there people currently straddling engines who need to be clearly assigned?
• Where are the gaps — roles this model needs that don't exist today?
• Where is there redundancy — roles that this model eliminates or automates?

Round 3: Technology — The Platform Reality Check

The proposal splits tech ownership by engine. Let's validate:

• How many developers / tech resources does WKT have today?
• What percentage of their time goes to RapidLMS vs. ALF vs. SCORM vs. other?
• Where are Publishing and Institutional currently competing for platform time?
• Is SCORM Engine ready to be a reliable B2B staging gate — or does it need investment?
• Can we actually split tech resources, or is the team too small to divide?

Round 4: Revenue & Economics

To make the financial case, we need real numbers:

• Approximate revenue split: Publishing (retail + B2B) vs. Institutional (managed contracts)
• Margin profile: which business is more profitable per dollar?
• Current total headcount and approximate cost structure
• Where is money being spent that doesn't clearly belong to one engine?
• What does "lean" look like to Sue from a finance perspective?

Round 5: The Hard Questions

These are the questions that will determine whether this model actually gets implemented:

• Glenn: Does the Integrator role as described match your understanding? What authority do you need that you don't have today?
• Sue: From an operations perspective, what breaks if we split things this way? What gets easier?
• Chris: Are you willing to let the Publishing GM make decisions without escalating to you? Are you willing to protect R&D from commercial pressure — even when revenue is tight?
• Everyone: What's the one thing that would make you say "this won't work"?

Round 6: Next Steps & Commitments

If the model holds up after stress-testing:

1. What's the first concrete action? (e.g., assign GM candidates, split a tech sprint, create separate P&Ls)
2. What's the timeline? (90-day phased rollout? Q2 target?)
3. Who needs to be brought into this conversation next? (Sami? Other leaders?)
4. What data do we need to collect before the next session?

Builds on Chris LaBossiere's "Manifesto: A Reflection on Leadership and Clarity" (December 2025). Translates the Sell/Operate/Invent/Support framework into an actionable blueprint with Publishing lanes, technology platform governance, and the SKU lifecycle from Invent to market.

This is a living document. It will evolve during and after the workshop session.