Local Government and Council Service Reviews

A practical, on-the-ground conversation with Srinath Susarla and Shanaka Jayasinghe

If you work in local government, you’ll recognise the moment: a budget workshop where everyone is trying to be reasonable, but the numbers just don’t add up. Costs are climbing. The asset base is ageing. Community expectations keep moving in one direction (up). And the organisation’s capacity to absorb risk, disruptions, and “surprises” keeps moving in the other direction (down).

In that environment, service reviews stop being a nice-to-have. They become one of the few structured ways councils can make confident decisions—decisions that are defensible to councillors, executive teams, auditors and, most importantly, the community.

To unpack what a good local government service review looks like in practice—and where councils tend to get real traction—we’ve written this as a conversation between two people who spend a lot of time in the detail:

• Srinath Susarla, an independent consultant with extensive experience across Australian local government service delivery and operational reform.
• Shanaka Jayasinghe, Partner at Trace Consultants, working with councils on asset management, preventative maintenance, procurement support, workforce optimisation and fleet performance.

This isn’t a glossy brochure. It’s a deep dive into what councils are actually wrestling with, where service reviews most often pay off, and how to make improvement stick.

Why council service reviews are becoming unavoidable

Shanaka: The past few years have changed the baseline. Councils aren’t just dealing with “inflation this year” or “a difficult recruitment market right now.” A lot of the pressures feel structural—construction markets, contractor availability, compliance expectations, insurance, fuel, technology costs, climate-related events. Even when one pressure eases, another takes its place.

Srinath: I’d add that the “cost of doing business” has risen in ways that aren’t always visible in a single line item. A small change in regulatory compliance can mean new inspection regimes, more documentation, more contractor requirements. A small change in risk appetite can mean more planned work, more audits, more controls. Multiply that across multiple services and the operating model gets heavier.

Shanaka: And community expectations haven’t softened. If anything, visibility through social media means service issues escalate faster. Waste missed? Photos online the same day. Playground defect? People expect immediate action. Potholes? Community expects prioritisation and transparency.

Service reviews create a practical response to that reality. Not as a “cut costs” exercise, but as a way to clarify:

• What services are we delivering today?
• What level of service are we committed to?
• What does it cost (end-to-end) to deliver it?
• Where are the operational risks and failure points?
• What changes would genuinely improve outcomes and sustainability?

What is a service review in local government?

A council service review is a structured examination of how a service is designed and delivered, with the aim of improving performance, cost effectiveness, risk management and community outcomes.

A good service review typically looks across four lenses:

1. Service and demand
   • What is the service scope?
   • What service levels are expected (and by whom)?
   • What drives demand (seasonality, growth, regulatory change, community behaviour)?
2. Operating model and workforce
   • Who delivers the work (internal, contractor, hybrid)?
   • How is work scheduled, dispatched, supervised and assured?
   • Where are bottlenecks, duplication, or skill gaps?
3. Assets, maintenance and enabling systems
   • What assets underpin delivery (fleet, plant, facilities, equipment, infrastructure)?
   • How do we manage condition, risk and renewals?
   • Are systems (CMMS, GIS, finance) helping or hindering?
4. Procurement, contracts and supplier performance
   • What are we buying and from whom?
   • Are scopes clear, measurable and aligned to outcomes?
   • Do contracts incentivise the right behaviour, and do we manage them properly?

Srinath: The key word is “structured”. Councils often feel where the problems are. Service reviews turn that intuition into evidence and options.

Shanaka: And ideally, they give councils a path forward that isn’t purely cost-based. Sometimes the right move is standardisation. Sometimes it’s better maintenance planning. Sometimes it’s a new contract model. Sometimes it’s workforce redesign. Often it’s a combination.

The service review trap: treating it as a report, not a decision tool

Service reviews fail when they become a document rather than a decision tool.

Srinath: I’ve seen reviews that produce beautiful diagrams but never change the day-to-day reality. That usually happens when the review is divorced from implementation—no owners, no sequencing, no governance, and no attention to the practical constraints councils operate under.

Shanaka: Another trap is starting with solutions. “We need to outsource this” or “we need to bring this in-house” before the service is properly understood. The review should build a baseline first, then explore options.

A practical service review should end with:

• A clear baseline (cost, service levels, demand, performance, risks)
• A small set of implementable options (not a menu of 40 ideas)
• Impacts: cost, service, risk, workforce, procurement and governance
• A staged roadmap (quick wins + structural changes)
• Clear owners, timeframes and measures

A practical playbook: how councils can run service reviews that actually stick

There’s no single template that fits every council, but there is a sequence that tends to work.

1) Define the service properly (scope and service levels)

Before analysing cost, define what “the service” actually includes.

For example, “cleaning” might include:

• routine cleaning,
• periodic deep cleans,
• consumables,
• ad-hoc event cleaning,
• after-hours call outs,
• waste removal,
• and complaints management.

If you don’t define scope, you can’t control it.

2) Build an end-to-end cost picture (not just the contract value)

Total cost of service isn’t only supplier invoices. It also includes:

• internal supervision and contract management,
• customer requests and complaints handling,
• work order administration,
• safety and compliance activity,
• fleet and plant costs,
• and overheads embedded in delivery.

3) Map demand and workload drivers

Demand is not static. Councils need to understand:

• seasonal spikes (events, storms, summer parks usage),
• growth areas,
• changes in community behaviour,
• and legislative/regulatory obligations.

4) Understand performance and constraints

What is “good” for this service?

• response times,
• defect reduction,
• customer satisfaction,
• compliance outcomes,
• safety performance,
• cost predictability.

And what are the constraints?

• workforce availability,
• contract lock-in,
• technology limitations,
• physical geography,
• political sensitivity.

5) Identify options and trade-offs

Options should be realistic and comparable, for example:

• standardise and re-tender,
• rationalise suppliers,
• redesign rostering and deployment,
• increase planned maintenance,
• change contract mechanisms (rates, indexation, scope),
• implement new performance monitoring.

6) Implement with governance (and don’t underestimate change management)

Service reviews touch people’s work. Implementation needs:

• clear executive sponsorship,
• transparent engagement with stakeholders,
• practical sequencing,
• and simple reporting that keeps momentum.

Srinath: A good service review isn’t judged by how clever the analysis is. It’s judged by whether the council can act on it.

Deep dive 1: Asset management as the backbone of council service reviews

Asset management is where many councils feel the tension most sharply: large portfolios, rising maintenance needs, and limited resources. Roads, footpaths, buildings, playgrounds, drainage, lighting, sporting infrastructure—each comes with different risk profiles, condition patterns and service expectations.

Shanaka: We often see councils running multiple “asset conversations” at once. The capital works team talks renewals. Operations talks defects. Finance talks depreciation and long-term sustainability. A service review brings those conversations together and asks: what are we trying to achieve, and what’s the most cost-effective way to achieve it?

What a service review should examine in council asset management

Asset register quality and asset hierarchy

If the asset register is incomplete or inconsistent, decisions become guesswork. A review should test:

• Is the asset register complete for key asset classes?
• Is the hierarchy usable (asset class → component → subcomponent)?
• Do we know location, age, material, and criticality?
• Are we capturing failure history in a meaningful way?

Levels of service and community expectations

Councils often carry “implicit” service levels—standards that everyone assumes but nobody has formally defined.

Examples:

• How quickly must a pothole be made safe?
• What condition should playgrounds be kept at?
• What is an acceptable level of amenity for public toilets?
• How often should stormwater assets be inspected or cleaned?

Srinath: Many councils default to historical practice. The review question is: do those practices still make sense? Are we over-servicing some assets and under-servicing others?

Asset criticality and risk-based prioritisation

Not all assets matter equally. A risk-based approach considers:

• safety impact,
• service disruption impact,
• regulatory exposure,
• community visibility,
• and replacement lead times.

Service reviews that introduce a practical criticality model often unlock fast improvements, because the organisation stops treating every defect as equal.

Linking asset planning to maintenance delivery reality

Asset management plans can be solid on paper, but service reviews test whether:

• maintenance crews can actually deliver the plan,
• work is scheduled and tracked properly,
• and renewals programs address the true drivers of failures.

The most common asset management pain points service reviews uncover

Shanaka: There are patterns we see repeatedly.

1. Reactive maintenance dominating the work programme
   Planned work gets bumped by urgent defects, which drives overtime, contractor call-outs, and budget volatility.
2. The “tyranny of the visible”
   Highly visible assets (town centres, main roads) attract attention, while less visible assets (stormwater, back-of-house facilities) quietly deteriorate.
3. Inconsistent standards across depots, regions or legacy councils
   Different teams do things differently. It feels flexible, but it usually means cost variability and quality inconsistency.
4. Asset data not used in decision-making
   The council might have a CMMS, but if work orders aren’t coded correctly, or if condition data isn’t updated, the system doesn’t support planning.

What “good” looks like after an asset-focused service review

A practical outcome is not “perfect asset management”. It’s a set of improvements councils can actually maintain:

• clear service levels by asset class,
• a simple criticality model to prioritise work,
• a realistic planned maintenance schedule,
• standard job plans for recurring tasks,
• and a pipeline that connects maintenance, renewals and budget planning.

Srinath: The best reviews reduce surprises. Councils can’t eliminate all failures, but they can eliminate the feeling that failures come out of nowhere.

Deep dive 2: Preventative maintenance and the shift from reactive to predictable

If asset management is the “what”, preventative maintenance is the “how”. It’s also one of the most misunderstood areas—because it’s easy to say “we should do more planned maintenance” and much harder to make it happen.

Shanaka: Preventative maintenance isn’t a slogan. It’s a disciplined operating model: planning, scheduling, work execution, quality assurance, and feedback loops.

What a preventative maintenance service review should cover

Maintenance mix and work order quality

A review needs to quantify:

• planned vs reactive work,
• emergency call-outs,
• repeat failures,
• and the “unplanned but not emergency” work that quietly consumes capacity.

But it also needs to test whether work order data is reliable. If everything is coded as “urgent”, the system can’t support prioritisation.

Standard job plans and time allowances

For recurring tasks (inspections, servicing, cleaning of assets, routine checks), standard job plans:

• reduce variability,
• make scheduling realistic,
• and improve quality.

Councils often have pockets of this in certain teams; service reviews spread it across the operating model.

Scheduling discipline and weekly work programming

Preventative maintenance relies on scheduling discipline:

• weekly work programmes,
• route planning,
• coordination of crews,
• and early identification of constraints (access, traffic control, permits, parts).

Srinath: This is where the “real world” hits. A good review doesn’t assume perfect conditions. It designs for storms, sick leave, urgent defects, and community priorities.

Contractor integration without losing control

Where contractors deliver maintenance, councils need to ensure:

• scopes are clear and measurable,
• rates don’t incentivise inefficiency,
• and council retains the ability to prioritise and redirect.

A common failure mode is letting contractors dictate what “needs doing” without a council-led asset risk framework.

KPIs that drive the right behaviour

Preventative maintenance KPIs should support reliability, safety and cost predictability—without creating perverse incentives.

Useful measures might include:

• PM schedule compliance (by asset class),
• reduction in repeat defects,
• response time to safety-critical issues,
• percentage of work delivered as planned,
• and audit results for workmanship and compliance.

Examples of preventative maintenance levers in council environments

To make this concrete, service reviews often explore levers like:

• Buildings and facilities: HVAC servicing regimes, essential safety measures, lighting inspections, fire systems, roof and gutter programmes.
• Parks and open space: playground inspection routines, irrigation maintenance schedules, sports field maintenance cycles aligned to usage.
• Roads: reseal and patching programmes, line marking schedules, sign and barrier inspections.
• Stormwater: pit cleaning schedules tied to risk and known hotspots, inspection regimes after major rain events, proactive asset clearing.
• Fleet and plant: servicing schedules, defect management, pre-start checks, and workshop scheduling.

Shanaka: The point isn’t to do everything more often. It’s to do the right things at the right frequency for the risk and usage profile.

Deep dive 3: Procurement support that improves service delivery (not just pricing)

Procurement is frequently treated as a process: tender, evaluate, award, repeat. But in councils, procurement is also a service design tool. The way a contract is structured determines how the service behaves.

Srinath: It’s not unusual to see councils with contract structures that reflect the market of 10 or 15 years ago. The contract still “works” but it doesn’t produce the outcomes councils now need—resilience, performance visibility, and flexible service changes.

Shanaka: And procurement is where councils can remove a lot of hidden waste—unclear scopes, duplicated suppliers, inconsistent standards, poor indexation mechanisms, weak performance regimes.

What procurement-focused service reviews examine

Scope clarity and “what we actually buy”

In operational services, cost blowouts often come from scope creep and ambiguity:

• what’s included vs excluded,
• what “good” looks like,
• what happens when conditions change.

A procurement support review often starts by rewriting scopes so they are:

• measurable,
• auditable,
• and aligned to service levels.

Contract mechanisms and commercial alignment

Service reviews test whether the contract mechanism matches the service:

• schedule of rates vs lump sum,
• output-based vs input-based,
• incentives/abatements,
• indexation and change control,
• and mobilisation/transition requirements.

Supplier performance management (and council capability to manage it)

A contract is only as good as the council’s ability to manage it. Reviews look at:

• who owns supplier relationships,
• how performance is measured and reported,
• how issues are escalated,
• and whether councils have the right forums, templates and cadence.

Procurement deep dive: Waste services (collection, transfer stations, processing)

Waste is one of the highest spend and highest visibility services for many councils, and it’s also one of the most politically sensitive.

Srinath: Waste services often carry legacy decisions—collection frequency, bin sizes, kerbside configuration—that were made years ago. A service review is a chance to test whether the current configuration still fits community needs, cost pressures and environmental objectives.

What a waste service review typically covers

Service configuration and demand

• collection frequency (and whether it’s consistent across the LGA),
• bin configuration (general waste, recycling, organics),
• contamination drivers and education needs,
• growth areas and route expansion requirements,
• and service exceptions (multi-unit developments, CBD areas, events).

Route design and operational efficiency

Even without going into complex modelling, a service review can examine:

• route logic and depot location impacts,
• missed bin trends (and their root causes),
• timing constraints (school zones, traffic, noise restrictions),
• and how changes are requested and approved.

Contract structure and risk allocation

Key issues councils should test:

• how fuel and CPI indexation is applied,
• what happens when landfill levies change,
• how service changes are priced,
• and whether the contract encourages proactive performance or simply “minimum compliance”.

Transfer stations and waste facilities

Service reviews look at:

• operating hours vs community demand,
• staffing models and safety controls,
• third-party contractor roles,
• weighbridge and reporting systems,
• and the cost-to-serve of different waste streams.

Shanaka: A lot of improvement in waste comes from tightening the basics—clearer service standards, stronger performance reporting, better change control—rather than chasing headline changes.

Procurement deep dive: Cleaning services across council facilities

Cleaning tends to be underestimated. It looks simple, but it spreads across multiple facility types with different usage patterns.

Srinath: Councils often inherit cleaning contracts as “set and forget”. Over time, facilities change: libraries expand, community centres get busier, staff work patterns shift, and service expectations move.

What a cleaning service review should examine

Fit-for-purpose service levels

A practical review will segment facilities:

• customer-facing vs back-of-house,
• high-traffic vs low-traffic,
• sensitive environments (maternal health, childcare, aquatic centres),
• event-driven sites.

Then it tests whether cleaning frequencies reflect actual usage, not legacy assumptions.

Day cleaning vs after-hours models

Day cleaning can improve responsiveness and reduce security access issues, but it must be structured properly to avoid “busy but not effective” outcomes.

Quality assurance and auditing

Cleaning performance should be measurable:

• audit checklists aligned to facility type,
• clear rectification timelines,
• and transparent reporting that doesn’t become a paperwork exercise.

Consumables and extras

Many councils see leakage in:

• consumables supply arrangements,
• periodic deep cleans,
• ad-hoc event cleaning,
• and reactive call-outs.

A service review tightens scope and commercial mechanisms around these.

Procurement deep dive: Security services (guards, patrols, technology)

Security is a service where risk appetite and historical practice often diverge.

Shanaka: Some sites genuinely need physical presence. Others may be better served by technology, access control, lighting improvements, or changes to operating hours.

What a security service review should examine

Risk-based coverage by site and time

• Which sites have real incident history?
• When do incidents occur?
• What risks are we controlling (theft, vandalism, staff safety, public safety)?

Static guarding vs mobile patrols

Static guarding can be expensive and sometimes poorly targeted. Mobile patrols can be effective if:

• response expectations are clear,
• patrol frequency is defined,
• and incident reporting is robust.

Integration with technology

A modern security model often includes:

• CCTV monitoring and maintenance,
• alarms and access control,
• duress systems,
• and clear escalation pathways.

Contractor governance and performance

Security contracts need strong:

• vetting requirements,
• incident reporting standards,
• and performance consequences that are enforceable.

Srinath: The most common mistake is paying for “presence” rather than paying for risk reduction outcomes.

Procurement deep dive: Facilities maintenance, trades, and reactive call-outs

Facilities and trade services are a frequent source of cost volatility:

• call-out fees,
• quoting processes,
• small variations,
• inconsistent rates across contractors,
• and limited visibility of repeat failures.

Shanaka: Service reviews often find councils aren’t buying “maintenance”; they’re buying fragmentation.

What a service review can do here

• introduce a panel model with defined rates and response times,
• standardise work order coding so repeat failures are visible,
• clarify what is done in-house vs outsourced (based on skills, safety, cost and availability),
• tighten quoting and approval processes to reduce leakage,
• and implement basic performance reporting that doesn’t overburden teams.

Deep dive 4: Workforce optimisation with a spotlight on parking inspectors

Parking services are often discussed in narrow terms—revenue or enforcement. In reality, it’s a compliance service that sits in a sensitive community space.

Srinath: Parking enforcement is one of the most visible interactions between council and the public. That means the workforce model matters—not just for efficiency, but for fairness, safety, and public trust.

Shanaka: And it’s also one of the services where councils can use data well. Infringements, hotspots, time-of-day patterns, complaints, disputes—there’s usually more data than councils realise.

What a parking inspector workforce optimisation review should cover

Demand analysis by place and time

A practical review maps demand drivers:

• commuter corridors,
• activity centres,
• school zones,
• beach and recreation hotspots,
• events and seasonal peaks,
• construction impacts.

This helps answer: are we deploying staff where demand actually is?

Rostering and deployment design

Many councils carry rosters that are “how we’ve always done it”. Reviews test:

• shift start and end times (do they align to demand peaks?),
• split shifts and weekend coverage,
• supervision spans (is support available when incidents occur?),
• and fatigue/overtime drivers.

Productivity without perverse incentives

A common mistake is measuring “tickets per hour” as the primary indicator. That can distort behaviour and harm community trust.

Better measures often look like:

• coverage of priority areas,
• compliance outcomes in hotspots,
• response times to high-risk issues (e.g. accessible parking misuse),
• and customer complaint trends.

Safety and wellbeing

Parking officers work in challenging conditions. A workforce review should include:

• incident patterns,
• training and conflict management,
• lone worker protocols,
• escalation and support,
• body-worn cameras (where used) and policies,
• and alignment with WHS obligations.

Technology enablement

Technology can improve both productivity and fairness:

• handheld systems,
• mobile printing (or not, depending on policy),
• evidence capture,
• integration with permits,
• licence plate recognition (where appropriate),
• and streamlined infringement review processes.

Srinath: The point is not “more enforcement”. It’s smarter deployment that supports safe, fair compliance outcomes.

Deep dive 5: Fleet management as a council-wide performance lever

Fleet is one of those areas where costs creep quietly: maintenance, downtime, replacement, fuel, insurance, safety. It affects almost every operational service.

Shanaka: Councils can have strong procurement and maintenance teams, but still struggle with fleet because responsibility is spread—business units want autonomy, fleet teams want standardisation, finance wants cost control, and operations want reliability.

A fleet management service review helps align the organisation around a clear strategy.

What a fleet service review should examine

Fleet purpose and fit-for-task

• Are vehicles fit for the tasks they do?
• Are there specialised vehicles used for general tasks (or vice versa)?
• Are heavy plant and light fleet managed consistently?

Utilisation and pooling

Some councils can unlock improvement simply by:

• improving booking and pooling,
• reducing underutilised vehicles,
• and matching fleet availability to shift patterns.

Replacement strategy and lifecycle cost

A disciplined replacement strategy reduces “run to failure” behaviour and helps budgeting. A review typically tests:

• replacement triggers (age, km/hours, maintenance cost, downtime),
• alignment with safety and compliance,
• and whether replacement decisions are consistent across units.

Maintenance delivery model

Key questions:

• in-house workshop vs outsourced servicing (or hybrid),
• parts procurement and inventory management,
• vehicle downtime drivers,
• and whether preventative maintenance is executed reliably.

Transition planning (including alternative fuel vehicles)

Many councils are considering EVs and lower-emission options. A service review can help councils approach this pragmatically:

• which fleet segments are ready now,
• what charging infrastructure is required,
• what operational constraints exist (range, towing, payload),
• and how to stage transition without disrupting services.

Srinath: Fleet tends to be a multiplier. If fleet reliability improves, service delivery improves. If fleet costs blow out, every operational budget feels it.

Pulling it together: governance, cost transparency and making service reviews actionable

A council can run great reviews and still struggle if governance and implementation capability are weak.

Shanaka: Implementation usually fails for boring reasons: unclear owners, competing priorities, weak data, not enough contract management capability, or “everyone agrees but nothing changes”.

What helps service review recommendations stick

A service catalogue and clear service ownership

A service catalogue doesn’t need to be complicated. It needs:

• clear service definitions,
• service owners,
• service levels (where appropriate),
• and a shared understanding of what is in/out of scope.

Cost transparency that supports decisions

Councils don’t need perfect activity-based costing to make better decisions. They do need:

• consistent coding,
• visibility of internal vs external cost,
• clarity on overheads and enabling costs,
• and a way to track whether changes are delivering benefits.

Contract management capability uplift

If a service review recommends “re-tender and standardise”, councils need the capability to:

• manage the tender properly,
• manage transition,
• and then manage the contract over its life.

A realistic roadmap (quick wins + structural changes)

Not everything should be done at once. A good roadmap separates:

• quick wins (scope clarity, reporting, scheduling discipline),
• medium-term changes (procurement cycles, workforce redesign),
• and longer-term reforms (systems uplift, asset data improvement).

How Trace Consultants can help councils with service reviews

Trace Consultants supports Australian councils through service reviews that combine operational reality with commercial discipline. The focus is on services where councils can improve outcomes by tightening the link between assets, maintenance, procurement, workforce and performance governance.

Shanaka: Our approach is practical and staged. Councils don’t need theory—they need a clear baseline, a small set of implementable options, and support to land the changes.

Where Trace typically supports local government service reviews

1) Service review design and baseline (getting the fact base right)

• defining scope and service levels with stakeholders,
• mapping end-to-end cost and process,
• diagnosing demand and workload drivers,
• identifying constraints and risks,
• developing a clear baseline that can be used in decision-making.

2) Asset management and preventative maintenance uplift

• asset criticality and risk-based prioritisation,
• planned maintenance scheduling models,
• standard job plans and performance measures,
• integration between CMMS, asset registers and operational planning,
• practical pathways to reduce reactive maintenance and improve predictability.

3) Procurement support across operational categories

• scope standardisation (waste, cleaning, security, facilities, trade services),
• go-to-market strategy and tender support,
• commercial and contract mechanism design (including indexation, KPIs, abatements),
• supplier performance frameworks and reporting cadence,
• transition planning to reduce operational disruption.

4) Workforce optimisation (including parking compliance)

• demand and deployment analysis,
• roster and shift design,
• productivity and safety improvements,
• supervision and governance models,
• technology enablement opportunities aligned to service outcomes.

5) Fleet management strategy and optimisation

• utilisation and right-sizing,
• replacement strategy and lifecycle cost drivers,
• maintenance delivery model optimisation,
• fleet procurement and standardisation,
• practical transition planning for lower-emission fleet where appropriate.

What makes Trace’s approach different (in plain language)

• We focus on what can be implemented, not just what can be analysed.
• We connect procurement decisions to how services actually run day-to-day.
• We work with councils to improve capability (not dependency), so improvements last.

Srinath: From an independent perspective, what councils value in external support is practicality—people who understand the realities of depots, contract transitions, union considerations, community expectations, and governance. When those realities are reflected in the review, recommendations are far more likely to stick.

Practical questions councils can use to guide a service review

Sometimes the simplest way to start is with the right questions.

Asset management and maintenance

• Do we know which assets create the highest safety and service risk?
• Are maintenance priorities set by risk, or by who complains loudest?
• What percentage of maintenance is planned vs reactive—and why?
• Are repeat failures visible in our data, and are we acting on them?

Preventative maintenance

• Are planned tasks actually completed on schedule?
• Do we have standard job plans for recurring work?
• Are we resourcing planned maintenance, or hoping it happens “around” reactive work?
• Do contractor arrangements support reliability, or encourage call-outs?

Procurement (waste, cleaning, security, facilities)

• Are scopes and service levels clear and measurable?
• Are contracts structured for today’s market conditions and risks?
• Do we have performance reporting that’s meaningful, not just paperwork?
• Do we have the capability to manage contracts once awarded?

Parking enforcement workforce optimisation

• Are staffing levels and rosters aligned to demand peaks and hotspots?
• Are safety protocols and supervision adequate for the reality of the role?
• Are KPIs driving fair and effective compliance outcomes?
• Are systems supporting efficient processing and dispute handling?

Fleet

• Do we have underutilised fleet that could be pooled or removed?
• Are replacement decisions consistent and based on lifecycle cost?
• Is downtime disrupting services—and do we know why?
• Do we have a realistic plan for any future fleet transition?

Closing thoughts: service reviews as a capability, not a one-off

Srinath: The councils that do well over time are the ones that treat service reviews as part of continuous improvement—not as a one-off response to budget stress.

Shanaka: Agreed. A strong service review gives councils clarity: where costs sit, where risks sit, and which changes will genuinely improve service outcomes and sustainability.

For Australian councils, the opportunity is real—particularly in the areas that consistently drive cost and risk: asset management, preventative maintenance, procurement across operational services, workforce optimisation (including parking compliance), and fleet management.

If your council is considering a service review—or wants to move from insights to implementation—Trace Consultants can help you design a practical review, build the baseline, identify workable options, and support delivery in a way that stands up to operational reality and governance expectations.

Defence supply chains rarely attract attention when they are working well. Equipment is available, personnel are supported, bases function, and operations proceed as planned.

When they fail, however, the consequences are immediate, visible and potentially severe. Across Australia and New Zealand, defence organisations are operating in an environment defined by heightened geopolitical uncertainty, increasing operational tempo, constrained labour markets, and ageing platforms and infrastructure. At the same time, expectations around readiness, resilience and sovereign capability have increased materially.

In this context, defence supply chains are no longer a supporting function, they are a core determinant of preparedness and capability.

This article explores what effective defence supply chains look like today, why traditional approaches are no longer sufficient, and how targeted investment in supply chain capability can materially improve readiness and resilience without unnecessary complexity or cost escalation.

Preparedness and capability: why supply chains matter

Preparedness is often discussed in terms of platforms, personnel and funding. Less visible, but just as critical, is the supply chain that sustains them.

Defence supply chains underpin:

• Availability of equipment and assets
• Sustainment and maintenance outcomes
• Workforce effectiveness
• Base operations and support services
• Training and exercise readiness
• Surge and contingency response

A highly capable force with fragile logistics is not a prepared force. In modern defence environments, the ability to anticipate demand, position inventory, mobilise logistics capacity and sustain operations over time is central to operational credibility.

The unique nature of defence supply chains

Defence supply chains differ fundamentally from commercial supply chains in several ways.

Demand uncertainty and volatility

Defence demand is inherently unpredictable. It is driven by:

• Operational requirements
• Exercises and training cycles
• Maintenance schedules
• Contingency scenarios

Traditional forecast-driven models are often insufficient on their own.

Long asset lifecycles

Many defence platforms and assets remain in service for decades. Supply chains must support:

• Obsolescence management
• Diminishing manufacturing sources
• Complex maintenance regimes

This places sustained pressure on inventory, procurement and engineering support.

High consequence of failure

In defence, supply chain failure can directly affect:

• Safety
• Mission success
• Strategic credibility

Tolerance for disruption is significantly lower than in most commercial settings.

Regulatory, security and sovereignty considerations

Defence supply chains must operate within:

• Security constraints
• Export controls
• Sovereign capability objectives
• Strict governance frameworks

These constraints shape sourcing, inventory and logistics decisions in ways that commercial supply chains do not face.

From efficiency to resilience and readiness

For many years defence supply chains, like their commercial counterparts, focused heavily on efficiency and cost control. Lean inventory, consolidated suppliers and just-in-time practices were adopted where possible. While these approaches delivered savings, they also reduced resilience. Recent global disruption has reinforced a critical lesson: efficiency without resilience undermines preparedness.

Modern defence supply chains must balance:

• Cost discipline
• Availability and redundancy
• Responsiveness to surge demand
• Sovereign and allied supply considerations

This requires deliberate design rather than incremental adjustment.

Inventory and materiel management as a capability enabler

Inventory is one of the most powerful and most misunderstood levers in defence supply chains.

Common challenges include:

• Incomplete or inconsistent inventory visibility
• Overstocking of low-criticality items
• Stock-outs of mission-critical spares
• Long lead times for replenishment
• Obsolescence and waste

Effective inventory management in defence requires:

• Clear classification of criticality
• Differentiated stocking strategies
• Integration between maintenance, engineering and logistics
• Data-driven policy rather than legacy rules

When done well, inventory becomes a force multiplier, improving readiness without excessive cost.

Sustainment and maintenance supply chains

Sustainment is where defence supply chains are most heavily tested.

Maintenance outcomes depend on:

• Availability of parts and consumables
• Workforce planning and skill availability
• Asset data quality
• Coordination between suppliers, bases and depots

Breakdowns in sustainment supply chains often manifest as:

• Extended asset downtime
• Cannibalisation of parts
• Increased safety risk
• Escalating cost

Improving sustainment performance requires an end-to-end view of the supply chain , not just isolated fixes.

Workforce as a critical supply chain constraint

Labour is one of the most constrained resources in defence supply chains.

Challenges include:

• Skills shortages in technical trades
• Ageing workforce demographics
• Competition with commercial sectors
• Security clearance requirements

Supply chain design that ignores workforce realities is unlikely to succeed.

Effective approaches consider:

• Demand-driven workforce planning
• Skill mix optimisation
• Workforce flexibility and surge models
• Integration of workforce planning with maintenance and logistics demand

Preparedness is as much about people as it is about inventory or infrastructure.

Infrastructure, bases and logistics nodes

Defence supply chains are anchored in physical infrastructure:

• Bases and depots
• Warehouses and workshops
• Ports, airfields and transport corridors

Many facilities were not designed for current operational requirements or future threats.

Challenges often include:

• Congested or inefficient layouts
• Limited capacity for surge operations
• Ageing assets
• Poor integration between infrastructure and operating models

Aligning infrastructure planning with supply chain strategy is essential to improving capability.

Transport and distribution in defence environments

Transport is a critical enabler of preparedness.

Defence transport supply chains must support:

• Routine distribution
• Training and exercises
• Rapid deployment
• Contingency and humanitarian response

Key challenges include:

• Long distances and remote locations
• Reliance on limited transport capacity
• Coordination between civilian and military providers
• Visibility and control across movements

A well-designed transport strategy improves both responsiveness and resilience.

Data, systems and visibility

Defence supply chains generate vast amounts of data, but insight is often limited by:

• Fragmented systems
• Inconsistent master data
• Manual workarounds
• Limited integration across functions

Improved visibility enables:

• Faster decision-making
• Better prioritisation
• Early identification of risk
• More effective use of resources

Technology is an enabler, but only when aligned to clear processes and governance.

Governance and decision-making

Defence supply chains operate within complex governance environments.

Challenges often include:

• Diffuse accountability
• Slow decision cycles
• Competing priorities
• Risk-averse behaviours

Improving preparedness requires governance that:

• Enables timely decisions
• Clarifies roles and responsibilities
• Balances risk and responsiveness
• Supports continuous improvement

Without this, even well-designed supply chains struggle to deliver outcomes.

Preparedness through scenario-based planning

One of the most effective ways to improve defence supply chains is through scenario-based planning.

Rather than relying solely on historical data, this approach considers:

• Surge demand scenarios
• Disruption to supply sources
• Workforce availability constraints
• Infrastructure limitations

Scenario-based planning helps identify vulnerabilities before they are exposed in real operations.

Sovereign capability and defence supply chains

Supply chain design plays a central role in sovereign capability objectives.

Key considerations include:

• Domestic manufacturing capacity
• Supplier resilience
• Strategic stockpiles
• Partnerships with industry

Sovereign capability does not mean doing everything locally, it means understanding where reliance exists and managing it deliberately.

Common challenges observed across defence supply chains

Across Australia and New Zealand, several themes appear consistently:

• Supply chains designed around peacetime assumptions
• Legacy processes not aligned to current risk profiles
• Limited integration between logistics, engineering and workforce planning
• Data quality issues undermining decision-making
• Fragmented accountability

Addressing these challenges requires structured, end-to-end thinking.

How Trace Consultants can help

Trace Consultants supports defence and defence-adjacent organisations to strengthen supply chain preparedness and capability in practical, defensible ways.

Our support typically includes:

• End-to-end defence supply chain reviews
• Inventory and materiel management strategy
• Sustainment and maintenance supply chain optimisation
• Workforce planning and capability design
• Logistics, warehousing and transport strategy
• Infrastructure and operating model alignment
• Data, systems and decision-support design
• Governance and performance framework development

We bring a pragmatic, execution-focused approach, grounded in how complex, asset-intensive supply chains actually operate, and how they must perform under pressure.

Building preparedness without unnecessary complexity

One of the biggest risks in defence supply chain transformation is over-engineering.

Preparedness is not achieved through:

• Excessive stockpiling without strategy
• Overly complex systems
• Rigid processes that slow response

It is achieved through:

• Clear priorities
• Robust fundamentals
• Data-driven decision-making
• Alignment between people, process and infrastructure

The most resilient supply chains are often those that are simple, visible and well-governed.

Final reflections

Defence supply chains are central to national preparedness and operational credibility. As the strategic environment becomes more uncertain, the ability to sustain forces, respond rapidly and manage risk will depend increasingly on how well defence supply chains are designed and governed.

Preparedness is not a single investment or initiative. It is the cumulative result of thousands of supply chain decisions about inventory, workforce, infrastructure, suppliers and systems, made deliberately and aligned to capability outcomes. For defence organisations across Australia and New Zealand, strengthening supply chain capability is not optional. It is foundational.

Is your supply chain strengthening preparedness, or quietly limiting it?‍

When readiness matters, supply chains need to hold under pressure, not just perform on paper. At Trace Consultants, we work with defence organisations to strengthen supply chain capability in practical, defensible ways. Clear priorities, better visibility, and decisions that improve readiness without unnecessary complexity.

Start a conversation with Trace to understand where your supply chain is supporting preparedness and where targeted change could make the greatest difference.

Network Optimisation – DC and Warehousing: How Many, How Big and Where

For many Australian and New Zealand organisations, the distribution centre and warehousing network has evolved over time rather than being deliberately designed. New sites are added as the business grows. Temporary solutions become permanent. Leases roll over. Service issues are patched rather than solved. Before long, the network becomes complex, expensive, and increasingly misaligned with customer expectations.

Network optimisation is the discipline of stepping back and asking some deceptively simple questions:

• How many distribution centres or warehouses do we actually need?
• How big should each facility be – today and in the future?
• Where should they be located to balance cost, service, risk and growth?

When done properly, network optimisation can unlock step-change improvements in operating cost, service performance, working capital, resilience and sustainability. When done poorly – or with the wrong incentives – it can lock organisations into expensive, inflexible decisions that are very difficult to unwind.

This article explores how organisations should think about DC and warehousing network optimisation, the common traps to avoid, and why independent, solution-agnostic advice is critical to getting it right.

Why network optimisation matters more than ever

Supply chains across Australia and New Zealand are operating in a fundamentally different environment than they were even five years ago.

Customer expectations around speed, reliability and visibility continue to rise. E-commerce and omnichannel fulfilment have shifted order profiles and delivery patterns. Labour availability and cost pressures are persistent. Transport markets are volatile. And boards and executives are paying closer attention to resilience, risk exposure and sustainability.

At the same time, DCs and warehouses represent some of the largest and least flexible cost commitments in the supply chain:

• Long-term property leases or owned assets
• Fixed labour and overhead structures
• Embedded technology and automation decisions
• Transport and inventory dependencies that cascade across the network

Once a network decision is made, it often shapes the business for a decade or more. That makes getting the fundamentals right – how many, how big and where – critically important.

The three core questions of network optimisation

1. How many DCs or warehouses do we need?

There is no “right” number of DCs. The optimal answer depends on the trade-off an organisation is willing to make between cost, service and risk.

At one end of the spectrum, a highly centralised network can deliver scale efficiencies, simpler inventory management and lower fixed costs. At the other end, a highly decentralised network can reduce transport lead times, improve service responsiveness and enhance resilience.

Key factors that influence the optimal number of facilities include:

• Customer service expectations – delivery speed, cut-off times, order frequency
• Product characteristics – size, weight, value, shelf life, handling complexity
• Demand patterns – geographic dispersion, variability, seasonality
• Transport economics – linehaul versus last-mile cost trade-offs
• Inventory strategy – safety stock policies and service level targets
• Risk tolerance – exposure to single-site disruptions

A common mistake is assuming that “more DCs equals better service” or that “fewer DCs equals lower cost”. In reality, both extremes can be sub-optimal if not supported by data and a clear operating model.

Network optimisation provides a structured way to test different scenarios and understand the real cost-to-serve and service implications of each option.

2. How big should each facility be?

Warehouse size decisions are often driven by what is available in the property market or what feels “safe” for growth. This can result in facilities that are either constrained from day one or materially oversized for years.

Sizing a DC correctly requires a deep understanding of:

• Current and future volume profiles (units, pallets, cartons, orders)
• Peak versus average demand and how peaks are managed
• Storage and handling requirements by product category
• Operating model assumptions – shifts, labour productivity, automation levels
• Inventory policies – days of cover, decoupling stock, buffer strategies
• Growth scenarios – organic growth, range expansion, channel shifts

Oversized facilities lock in unnecessary capital and operating costs. Undersized facilities drive congestion, inefficiency, safety risks and costly short-term workarounds.

Effective network optimisation links facility sizing directly to demand forecasts, inventory strategies and operational assumptions – not just high-level growth percentages.

3. Where should facilities be located?

Location decisions are among the most sensitive and visible outcomes of a network optimisation exercise.

In Australia and New Zealand, geography plays a particularly important role. Long distances, population concentration in major cities, regional service requirements, and limited labour pools all shape the optimal answer.

Key considerations include:

• Proximity to customers and service time commitments
• Access to transport infrastructure – road, port, intermodal
• Labour availability and cost
• Property market dynamics – availability, lease structures, escalation risk
• Exposure to risk – natural hazards, congestion, single-point failures
• Alignment with upstream suppliers or downstream partners

Location optimisation is not about picking a suburb on a map. It is about understanding how location interacts with transport cost, service performance, workforce sustainability and long-term flexibility.

Beyond cost: what good network optimisation really delivers

While cost reduction is often the initial trigger for a network review, the most successful programs deliver value across multiple dimensions.

Improved service performance

Well-designed networks reduce lead times, improve DIFOT performance and create more predictable service outcomes. This is increasingly important as customers expect tighter delivery windows and greater transparency.

Lower working capital

Network structure has a direct impact on inventory duplication and safety stock requirements. Optimisation can materially reduce working capital without compromising service when inventory is positioned deliberately rather than organically.

Greater resilience

Events over recent years have highlighted the fragility of overly centralised or poorly designed networks. Network optimisation allows organisations to test disruption scenarios and design in resilience where it matters most.

Better labour sustainability

Facility location and size decisions influence access to labour, turnover, productivity and safety outcomes. A network that looks efficient on paper but cannot be staffed reliably will struggle in practice.

Clearer investment decisions

Network optimisation provides a fact base for decisions on property, automation, systems and outsourcing. It ensures that downstream investments are aligned to a future-ready network design rather than locking in today’s constraints.

Common traps in DC and warehousing network decisions

Despite the strategic importance of network optimisation, many organisations fall into avoidable traps.

Letting property availability drive the answer

Choosing locations or sizes based primarily on what is available in the market often leads to compromised outcomes. Property constraints should be tested against the optimal network – not the other way around.

Optimising in isolation

Network decisions are sometimes made without fully considering inventory strategy, transport design, labour models or systems capability. This leads to local optimisation that underperforms end-to-end.

Over-reliance on rules of thumb

Heuristics such as “one DC per state” or “X square metres per pallet” can be useful starting points, but they are not substitutes for data-driven modelling.

Designing for today only

Networks designed around current volumes and channels can quickly become obsolete. Scenario testing and future-state thinking are essential.

Taking advice with embedded incentives

Perhaps the most significant trap is relying on advice from parties whose commercial interests are linked to a particular outcome – whether that is property development, automation deployment or technology selection.

Why independent, solution-agnostic advice matters

Network optimisation decisions shape millions – and often billions – of dollars of future cost and investment. The stakes are too high for advice that is not truly independent.

Independent, solution-agnostic advice means:

• No incentive to recommend more buildings than necessary
• No incentive to oversize facilities to sell automation or technology
• No incentive to bias location decisions towards specific property assets

Instead, decisions are driven by what is genuinely optimal for the organisation’s strategy, service promise and risk profile.

For executives and boards, this independence is critical. It provides confidence that recommendations are grounded in evidence, not sales targets or asset pipelines.

The role of data and modelling in network optimisation

Modern network optimisation goes well beyond simple spreadsheets. Effective analysis typically combines:

• Demand and volume forecasting by region and channel
• Cost-to-serve analysis across transport, warehousing and inventory
• Scenario modelling across different network configurations
• Sensitivity testing for growth, service and disruption scenarios

Importantly, the outputs of modelling should not be treated as a black box. The value lies in understanding the trade-offs and assumptions behind each scenario, not just the “optimal” answer.

Good network optimisation balances analytical rigour with practical operational insight.

Network optimisation is not a one-off exercise

One of the biggest misconceptions is that network optimisation is something you do once every ten years.

In reality, leading organisations treat it as a repeatable strategic capability, revisited as conditions change:

• Growth or contraction
• Channel shifts
• Changes in service strategy
• Cost pressure or margin erosion
• Mergers, acquisitions or divestments

Regularly revisiting network assumptions allows organisations to make proactive decisions rather than reacting under pressure.

How Trace Consultants can help

Trace Consultants supports Australian and New Zealand organisations to design DC and warehousing networks that are fit for purpose today and resilient for the future.

Our approach to network optimisation is grounded in a few core principles.

Independent and solution-agnostic

Trace is not linked to property developers, automation vendors or technology providers. This allows us to provide genuinely independent advice, focused solely on what is best for your organisation.

End-to-end perspective

We design networks in the context of the broader supply chain – integrating demand planning, inventory strategy, transport design, workforce considerations and systems capability.

Practical and implementable

Our recommendations are grounded in operational reality. We focus on designs that can actually be staffed, operated and scaled in the Australian and New Zealand context.

Scenario-led decision making

Rather than presenting a single “answer”, we help executives understand the trade-offs between different network options and make informed decisions aligned to strategy and risk appetite.

Support beyond the model

Trace supports clients from initial network strategy through to business case development, stakeholder engagement and implementation planning – ensuring that network decisions translate into real outcomes.

When should organisations consider network optimisation?

While every organisation’s context is different, common triggers include:

• Rising warehousing or transport costs
• Declining service performance
• Capacity constraints or congestion
• Major lease expiries or property decisions
• Growth into new regions or channels
• Mergers or organisational restructuring
• Increased focus on resilience and risk

If these signals are present, it is often a sign that the network has drifted away from what the business actually needs.

Final thoughts: getting the fundamentals right

“How many, how big and where” may sound simple, but these questions sit at the heart of supply chain performance.

Network optimisation is not about chasing theoretical efficiency. It is about deliberately designing a DC and warehousing network that supports your strategy, your customers and your people – now and into the future.

For Australian and New Zealand organisations facing ongoing cost pressure, service expectations and uncertainty, there are few levers with more impact than getting the network right.

Independent, solution-agnostic network optimisation provides the clarity needed to make confident, long-term decisions – and avoid locking in tomorrow’s problems.

‍