Measuring DIFOT Effectively

On-time, in-full delivery performance sits at the heart of supply chain service. For decades, organisations across Australia and New Zealand have relied on DIFOT – Delivered In Full, On Time – as the primary measure of whether supply chains are doing what they are meant to do.

Yet despite its widespread use, DIFOT is frequently misunderstood, inconsistently measured, and poorly applied. In many organisations it has become a headline number that looks reassuring on dashboards but fails to drive better decisions or behaviours. In others, it is weaponised in commercial conversations without a shared understanding of what it actually measures.

Measured poorly, DIFOT obscures problems rather than exposing them. Measured well, it becomes one of the most powerful tools for improving service reliability, prioritising improvement efforts, and holding internal teams and external partners accountable.

This article explores what DIFOT really means, why organisations often struggle to measure it effectively, and how to design DIFOT metrics that genuinely support better supply chain performance.

What DIFOT is – and what it is not

At its core, DIFOT measures whether a customer receives what they ordered, when they expected it.

Simple in theory. Complex in practice.

DIFOT is not just a logistics metric. It reflects the combined performance of demand planning, inventory management, procurement, warehousing, transport, customer service and supplier management. When DIFOT fails, the root cause is rarely confined to one function.

Just as importantly, DIFOT is not a single universal definition. What “on time” and “in full” mean varies significantly by industry, customer type and operating model. Treating DIFOT as a generic, one-size-fits-all KPI is one of the most common sources of confusion.

Why DIFOT matters so much

For customers, DIFOT is often the clearest indicator of service reliability. Consistently delivering in full and on time builds trust, reduces downstream disruption and strengthens commercial relationships.

For organisations, DIFOT has a direct link to:

• Revenue protection and growth
• Customer retention and satisfaction
• Inventory efficiency and working capital
• Transport and expediting costs
• Internal productivity and rework
• Reputation and brand perception

Despite this, many organisations focus on improving DIFOT scores without addressing the underlying drivers, leading to short-term fixes and long-term frustration.

Common problems with how DIFOT is measured

Vague or inconsistent definitions

One of the most frequent issues is a lack of clarity around what constitutes “on time” and “in full”.

Questions that often go unanswered include:

• Is “on time” measured against the customer request date, confirmed date, or promised date?
• Is there a tolerance window, and if so, how wide is it?
• Is “in full” measured by line, order, carton, pallet, unit or value?
• How are partial deliveries treated?

Without clear definitions, DIFOT becomes subjective and open to interpretation.

Measuring DIFOT at the wrong level

Another common issue is measuring DIFOT only at an aggregated level, such as monthly or network-wide performance.

High-level DIFOT figures can mask significant variability:

• Certain customers consistently underperform
• Specific SKUs drive a disproportionate number of failures
• Particular sites or routes create recurring issues

Effective DIFOT measurement requires visibility at the right level of detail to enable action.

Blending root causes into a single number

A single DIFOT percentage tells you very little about why performance is good or bad.

Late delivery due to transport issues, short supply due to inventory constraints, and order errors due to master data problems all show up as the same outcome. Without separating these drivers, improvement efforts lack focus.

Using DIFOT as a lagging indicator only

DIFOT is inherently backward-looking. It tells you what has already happened.

Organisations that rely solely on historical DIFOT reporting often struggle to anticipate problems before they impact customers. Leading indicators are essential to complement DIFOT if service is to be managed proactively.

Defining DIFOT properly for your organisation

There is no single “correct” DIFOT definition. The right definition is the one that aligns with customer expectations and internal decision-making.

Key principles to consider include:

Customer-centric definitions

DIFOT should reflect what matters to the customer, not what is most convenient to measure internally. This may require different definitions for different customer segments or channels.

For example, what constitutes “on time” for a retail distribution centre may be very different from what is acceptable for a direct-to-consumer delivery or a hospital supply chain.

Clear, documented rules

DIFOT definitions should be explicit, documented and consistently applied. This includes:

• Time tolerances
• Treatment of partial shipments
• Handling of customer-driven changes
• Cut-off times and lead time assumptions

Ambiguity erodes trust in the metric and undermines accountability.

Alignment across functions

Sales, customer service, supply chain and finance should all be working from the same DIFOT definition. Misalignment leads to unproductive debate and finger-pointing rather than improvement.

Measuring DIFOT at the right level of detail

Effective DIFOT measurement balances simplicity with insight.

Order, line and unit-level views

Different views answer different questions:

• Order-level DIFOT highlights customer experience
• Line-level DIFOT exposes SKU and availability issues
• Unit or quantity-based DIFOT shows the scale of impact

Relying on only one view can distort priorities.

Customer and channel segmentation

Not all DIFOT failures are equal. Losing service with a strategic customer or critical channel has very different implications to missing a low-volume order.

Segmented DIFOT reporting helps organisations focus effort where it matters most.

Site, route and supplier visibility

Breaking DIFOT down by site, route, carrier or supplier enables targeted operational improvement rather than blanket initiatives.

Understanding why DIFOT fails – root cause analysis

Measuring DIFOT without understanding why it fails limits its usefulness.

High-performing organisations classify DIFOT failures into meaningful root cause categories, such as:

• Forecast error or demand volatility
• Inventory availability or policy issues
• Supplier performance
• Warehouse picking or packing errors
• Transport delays or capacity constraints
• Order capture or master data errors

Over time, this builds a fact base that guides improvement investment.

Complementing DIFOT with leading indicators

To manage service proactively, DIFOT should be complemented by leading indicators that signal risk before delivery occurs.

Examples include:

• Inventory coverage versus target
• Backorder levels and ageing
• Supplier OTIF performance
• Warehouse backlog or throughput constraints
• Transport capacity utilisation

These metrics allow teams to intervene earlier and protect DIFOT outcomes.

DIFOT and behaviour – getting the incentives right

One of the biggest risks with DIFOT is how it influences behaviour.

Poorly designed DIFOT metrics can drive unintended consequences, such as:

• Overbuilding inventory to protect service
• Expensive expediting or freight upgrades
• Prioritising easy wins over systemic improvement
• Disputes over attribution rather than problem-solving

To avoid this, DIFOT should be part of a balanced performance framework rather than a standalone target.

Internal accountability versus external accountability

Holding internal teams accountable

Internally, DIFOT should encourage cross-functional collaboration. Failures should prompt investigation and learning, not blame.

Clear ownership of root causes – not just outcomes – helps teams focus on what they can control.

Holding suppliers and partners accountable

Externally, DIFOT and OTIF metrics are often embedded in supplier and carrier performance management.

To be effective, these metrics must be:

• Fair and transparent
• Based on agreed definitions
• Supported by reliable data

Without this foundation, DIFOT becomes a source of dispute rather than improvement.

The role of systems and data quality

Accurate DIFOT measurement relies on high-quality data across order management, inventory, warehousing and transport systems.

Common challenges include:

• Inconsistent timestamps
• Manual overrides
• Poor master data
• Lack of integration between systems

Before refining DIFOT definitions, organisations often need to address underlying data and process issues.

Using DIFOT as a decision-making tool

When measured effectively, DIFOT becomes a powerful input into strategic and operational decisions, including:

• Inventory policy and safety stock settings
• Network and capacity planning
• Supplier selection and development
• Transport strategy and carrier mix
• Customer service models and segmentation

This is where DIFOT moves from being a report to being a management tool.

How Trace Consultants can help

Trace Consultants works with Australian and New Zealand organisations to design, implement and embed effective DIFOT measurement frameworks that drive real improvement rather than superficial reporting.

Our support typically includes:

DIFOT definition and framework design

Helping organisations define DIFOT in a way that aligns with customer expectations, operating models and decision-making needs.

Data and reporting review

Assessing data flows, system limitations and reporting structures to ensure DIFOT metrics are accurate, reliable and actionable.

Root cause and performance analysis

Supporting structured analysis of DIFOT drivers to prioritise improvement initiatives based on evidence rather than intuition.

KPI and governance design

Embedding DIFOT into broader performance frameworks with clear ownership, escalation and review processes.

Independent, practical advice

Trace is not aligned to technology vendors or logistics providers. Our advice is independent, solution-agnostic and focused on outcomes.

When should organisations revisit how they measure DIFOT?

Common triggers include:

• DIFOT scores that look “good” but customer complaints persist
• Ongoing disputes about what DIFOT actually means
• Repeated service failures with the same customers or products
• Limited insight into why performance fluctuates
• Increased complexity from growth, new channels or new partners

These are often signs that DIFOT is being measured, but not managed.

Final thoughts

DIFOT is one of the most powerful service metrics in the supply chain – but only when it is defined, measured and used properly.

Effective DIFOT measurement requires clarity, discipline and a willingness to look beyond the headline number. It demands an understanding of customer expectations, operational realities and behavioural impacts.

For Australian and New Zealand organisations navigating cost pressure, service expectations and increasing complexity, getting DIFOT right is not about chasing a percentage point. It is about building a supply chain that is reliable, transparent and accountable.

‍

Transport Networks and Finding the Right Transport Providers

Benchmarking & KPI Management for Success

Transport is one of those supply chain functions that only gets attention when something goes wrong.

A delivery misses a cut-off and a customer escalates. A distribution centre runs out of dock space because linehaul arrives late. Freight invoices spike without explanation. One carrier performs brilliantly in metro areas but struggles in regional lanes. Suddenly, transport is no longer a background function—it is the business.

Across Australia and New Zealand, freight networks are becoming harder to manage. Costs are rising, service expectations are tightening, and disruption is more frequent. Many organisations are also dealing with more complex delivery profiles: e-commerce fulfilment, store replenishment, direct-to-site deliveries, bulky items, time-window commitments, reverse logistics and heightened compliance requirements.

In this environment, the difference between average and excellent transport performance often comes down to three things:

1. A transport network designed to suit your demand and service promise
2. Transport providers selected objectively, based on capability and fit (not familiarity)
3. Benchmarking and KPI management embedded into day-to-day operations and governance

This article walks through how to build a transport network that performs, how to select the right providers, and how to manage success using benchmarking and KPIs—without turning the function into a spreadsheet contest. It also outlines how Trace Consultants can help organisations in Australia and New Zealand improve transport outcomes with practical, independent support.

Why Transport Networks Matter More Than Ever

Transport is not just a cost line. It is a service engine, a risk exposure and, increasingly, a brand experience.

When transport networks are designed and managed well, organisations can achieve:

• Lower freight cost per unit without sacrificing service
• Higher DIFOT (Delivered In Full, On Time) and fewer customer escalations
• Better capacity certainty through seasonal peaks
• Reduced damage and claims
• Improved dock and warehouse flow (less congestion and rescheduling)
• More reliable inventory positioning and replenishment cycles
• Better data and visibility for decision-making

When networks are not designed or managed well, the opposite happens: operational workarounds grow, costs become opaque, service performance erodes, and the organisation becomes dependent on a few “hero operators” who keep things moving through sheer effort.

Transport networks deserve structured attention because they shape performance outcomes for years. Yet many organisations treat transport as something to “shop” every few years on rates alone, rather than designing a model that can sustain service and cost performance long term.

What Is a Transport Network, Really?

A transport network isn’t just which carrier moves freight from A to B. It is the complete set of decisions and structures that determine how freight flows through the business.

A transport network includes:

• The lanes and flows (DC to store, DC to customer, supplier to DC, inter-DC, returns)
• Service tiers (standard, express, timed, same-day, regional, remote)
• Mode choices (linehaul, courier, parcel, rigid/tautliner, containerised, dedicated fleet)
• Consolidation and deconsolidation points (cross-docks, hubs, metro depots)
• Cut-offs and lead times (how transport interacts with warehouse operations)
• Provider mix (single carrier, multi-carrier, primary/secondary, specialist providers)
• Governance and accountability (who owns decisions, escalation, improvement)
• Commercial structure (contracts, rate cards, minimums, fuel, accessorials)
• Performance management (KPIs, reporting cadence, claims process, root cause)

When these elements are aligned to the business strategy, transport becomes predictable. When they are not aligned, transport becomes a daily negotiation.

The Most Common Triggers for Reviewing a Transport Network

Organisations don’t usually set out to redesign their network for fun. It happens when pressure builds. Typical triggers include:

1. Cost Growth Outpaces Sales or Volume

Freight costs rise due to:

• accessorial charges creeping in
• poor consolidation
• inefficient lane allocations
• under-utilised vehicles
• non-compliant bookings
• fuel or surcharge complexity

Cost blowouts are often symptoms of network design and governance issues, not just carrier rates.

2. Service Performance Has Become Unreliable

Service declines show up as:

• late deliveries
• missed timed windows
• increased damaged freight
• rising customer complaints
• higher re-delivery costs

This often indicates capability mismatch between service requirements and provider model.

3. Growth, Channel Shift or SKU Complexity

New product ranges, new customer segments, and growth in direct-to-consumer fulfilment often break legacy networks.

4. Carrier Dependency Risk

Relying heavily on one provider can become a strategic risk, particularly during peak periods or industrial disruptions.

5. M&A, Footprint Changes or Network Moves

Warehouse moves, new facilities, or acquisitions often require lane redesign and provider reallocation.

When these triggers appear, the right approach isn’t to “retender everything immediately.” It’s to start by understanding the network and defining what “good” looks like, before going to market.

Finding the Right Transport Providers: Start With Fit, Not Familiarity

Provider selection in transport can be surprisingly subjective. Many organisations default to the carriers they know, or those that have “always been there.” But transport markets have evolved. Capability, technology, footprint, fleet profile and service models differ widely.

Selecting the right transport providers starts with a clear definition of:

• Your customer promise (what you must deliver, and when)
• Your freight profile (pallets, parcels, bulky, hazardous, temperature-controlled)
• Your lane structure (metro vs regional vs remote, density, frequency, variability)
• Your operational realities (dock constraints, cut-offs, packaging, loading)
• Your risk appetite (single source vs multi-carrier, contingency requirements)

Only once these are clear does “who is the best provider” become an objective question.

The Provider Selection Process That Actually Works

A strong provider selection process is structured, comparable and evidence-based. In practice, it usually includes these steps:

Step 1: Segment Your Freight and Lanes

Not all freight is equal. A good selection process segments:

• parcel vs pallet
• metro vs regional vs remote
• fast-moving vs low-frequency
• high-value vs low-value
• fragile vs robust
• timed vs standard

This segmentation enables targeted selection rather than forcing a single provider to do everything.

Step 2: Define Service Standards in Plain Language

Service definitions must be unambiguous, including:

• lead times by lane
• time window compliance requirements
• POD requirements
• claims and damage thresholds
• escalation processes
• booking cut-offs
• exception notification expectations

If you can’t describe service clearly, you can’t select providers fairly—or manage them effectively later.

Step 3: Run a Capability Assessment (Not Just a Rate Comparison)

Rates matter. But capability mismatch costs more than a higher linehaul rate.

Capability assessment should cover:

• network footprint and depot coverage
• linehaul schedules and frequency
• fleet profile and equipment availability
• subcontracting models and governance
• peak capacity approach
• safety and compliance maturity
• claims performance and handling processes
• technology and visibility capability
• customer service model and escalation response

Step 4: Align Commercial Structure to Behaviour

Commercial terms should encourage the behaviours you want:

• incentives for service and compliance
• clear treatment of accessorials
• transparent fuel mechanisms
• controls for rate variation over time
• clarity on minimums and volume commitments

Many transport relationships deteriorate not because a provider “gets worse,” but because the contract structure creates constant friction.

Step 5: Validate Through Lane Modelling

Where possible, compare providers on:

• total cost-to-serve across representative lanes
• service feasibility against your cut-offs
• operational constraints (dock hours, trailer swap models, equipment)

This moves the evaluation beyond rate cards.

Transport Benchmarking: What It Is (and What It Isn’t)

Benchmarking is one of the most powerful tools for improving transport performance—when done properly.

Benchmarking is not:

• asking a carrier if your rates are “competitive”
• comparing your rate card line-by-line with another organisation without context
• using generic industry averages that don’t reflect your lane mix

Good benchmarking is:

• a structured comparison of cost and performance relative to similar networks
• adjusted for volume density, distance, freight profile and service requirements
• used to identify improvement opportunities, not just negotiate harder

What to Benchmark in a Transport Network

Cost benchmarking can include:

• cost per pallet / carton / consignment
• cost per kilometre by lane
• cost-to-serve by customer segment or region
• accessorial and surcharge incidence
• claims cost and redelivery cost

Service benchmarking can include:

• DIFOT by lane and service tier
• on-time pickup performance
• damage rates
• exception rates (missed scans, lost freight)
• POD compliance times
• customer complaint incidence
• rework and rescheduling frequency

Operational benchmarking can include:

• dock-to-dispatch cycle time impacts
• trailer utilisation and cube utilisation
• consolidation rates
• booking compliance and despatch discipline

Benchmarking should lead to a short list of actionable initiatives, not a “report that sits on a shelf.”

KPI Management: Where Transport Relationships Win or Lose

Once providers are selected, performance management is where value is either realised or lost.

Many organisations have KPIs, but not KPI management. They produce reports, but don’t drive improvement. Or they manage performance through blame, which degrades relationships and encourages defensive behaviour.

High-performing transport organisations treat KPI management as a structured operating rhythm.

The Anatomy of Strong KPI Management

1. Choose KPIs That Influence Behaviour

Too many KPIs dilute focus. A strong set typically includes:

Service KPIs

• DIFOT (or on-time delivery) by lane and tier
• on-time pickup
• scan compliance / milestone visibility
• proof of delivery time compliance

Quality KPIs

• damage rate
• claims turnaround time
• loss incidence

Cost KPIs

• cost per unit (with clear unit definitions)
• accessorials as a percentage of spend
• invoice accuracy and dispute rate

Responsiveness KPIs

• exception notification timeliness
• time-to-resolution for escalations
• customer service response times

2. Define KPIs Precisely

A KPI that can be interpreted two ways will be argued two ways.

Define:

• time measurement basis (dispatch time vs booked time vs pickup time)
• what counts as “on time” (grace period, business hours, customer availability)
• what constitutes a “delivery attempt”
• how damages are attributed
• how exceptions are classified

Precision reduces friction and increases accountability.

3. Build a Cadence of Reviews

A strong cadence often includes:

• weekly operational reviews for exceptions and immediate fixes
• monthly performance reviews for trend analysis and root cause
• quarterly business reviews for strategic improvement and contract alignment

Without cadence, KPIs are just numbers.

4. Separate Root Cause from Blame

Performance problems are rarely caused by one party alone.

A missed delivery window could be:

• late linehaul
• poor booking data
• warehouse dispatch delays
• customer site constraints
• packaging failures

KPI management should drive joint root cause investigation and improvement actions.

5. Tie Performance to Commercial Outcomes (Carefully)

Incentives and penalties can work, but they must be:

• measurable
• fair
• controllable by the provider
• balanced

Overly punitive models drive gaming and degrade collaboration.

Building a Provider Portfolio: Single Carrier vs Multi-Carrier

There is no universally correct model. The right approach depends on network complexity, volume density, service requirements and risk appetite.

Single Carrier Models

Pros

• simplicity
• fewer interfaces
• consolidated negotiation

Risks

• dependency
• limited competitive pressure
• reduced flexibility in peak periods

Multi-Carrier Models

Pros

• resilience
• best-fit capability by segment
• competitive tension

Risks

• complexity
• governance burden
• risk of inconsistent customer experience

A common high-performing approach is:

• one or two primary carriers per segment or region
• secondary carriers for contingency and peak cover
• specialist providers for niche requirements (remote, bulky, temperature-controlled, timed)

This model balances simplicity and resilience.

The Hidden Value: Linking Transport KPIs to Warehouse and Customer Outcomes

Transport doesn’t exist in isolation. Some of the biggest gains come from aligning transport with warehousing and customer service.

Examples include:

• improving despatch discipline to reduce missed pickups
• adjusting cut-off times to improve linehaul performance
• slotting and loading practices that reduce damage
• packaging standards that reduce claims
• load building that improves utilisation and reduces cost per unit

When transport KPIs are linked to upstream warehouse metrics and downstream customer experience metrics, improvement becomes far more powerful—and far less political.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Trace Consultants supports organisations across Australia and New Zealand to design transport networks, select transport providers objectively, and implement benchmarking and KPI management that drives sustainable outcomes.

We help clients move from reactive transport management to structured performance and cost control—without adding unnecessary bureaucracy.

Independent, Vendor- and Carrier-Agnostic Support

We are not a carrier, broker or software vendor. That independence allows us to:

• assess options objectively
• challenge assumptions
• focus on what fits your operation and service promise

Transport Network Review and Strategy

We can help define:

• the right transport network structure for your lanes and demand profile
• segmentation strategies for freight and service tiers
• risk and resilience approaches (capacity, contingency)
• service promise alignment and feasibility testing

Provider Selection and Go-To-Market Support

Trace Consultants can support:

• market scanning and capability assessment
• tender design and evaluation frameworks
• commercial structure design (including accessorial controls and governance)
• contract and KPI schedule development
• transition planning and implementation governance

The goal is not just to pick “the cheapest carrier,” but to build a provider portfolio that performs.

Benchmarking and Cost-to-Serve Analysis

We help clients benchmark:

• rates and cost drivers in context
• accessorial incidence
• lane density and utilisation opportunities
• cost-to-serve by segment and region

This provides a fact base for negotiation and improvement—without relying on generic industry averages.

KPI Management Operating Rhythms

We support clients to implement practical performance management including:

• KPI definition and measurement design
• reporting and dashboarding requirements
• weekly/monthly/quarterly review cadences
• root cause and continuous improvement frameworks
• escalation pathways and governance structures

This is where savings and service improvements become “sticky.”

Building Internal Capability

Sustainable transport improvement requires internal capability. Trace Consultants can help uplift:

• transport governance maturity
• team capability and role clarity
• operating procedures and decision rights
• performance management routines

This reduces reliance on individuals and creates a repeatable approach.

Final Thoughts

Transport networks and provider relationships succeed when they are designed and managed deliberately.

Benchmarking gives organisations a fact base. KPI management turns that fact base into action. Provider selection determines whether capability matches your service promise. And network design sets the foundation that everything else sits on.

For organisations across Australia and New Zealand, the opportunity is significant:

• transport is often a major spend line
• performance is highly visible to customers
• small improvements compound quickly over time

The best outcomes come when organisations stop treating transport as a periodic procurement event and start treating it as an operating system: designed, governed, measured and improved continuously.

If your transport costs feel opaque, your service performance feels inconsistent, or your provider relationships feel reactive, it may be time to step back and redesign the way transport is managed—starting with the network, the provider portfolio and the KPIs that drive success.

‍

Implementing a Transport Management System

Transport is one of the largest and most complex cost lines in most supply chains. It is also one of the least visible.

For many organisations across Australia and New Zealand, transport spend sits across dozens of carriers, contracts, rate cards, spreadsheets, email inboxes and legacy systems. Freight decisions are often decentralised, reactive and heavily dependent on individual experience rather than structured data.

In that environment, it is no surprise that many organisations look to a Transport Management System (TMS) as the solution.

Done well, a TMS can materially improve:

• Freight cost control
• Service reliability
• Visibility and reporting
• Carrier performance management
• Scalability as volumes grow

Done poorly, it becomes another underutilised system—expensive to implement, hard to maintain, and delivering only a fraction of its potential value.

This article explores:

• What a Transport Management System actually does
• When implementing a TMS makes sense
• When it doesn’t
• Common pitfalls in TMS programs
• What good TMS implementation looks like
• How TMS fits within broader supply chain and operating model decisions
• How Trace Consultants can help organisations implement a TMS successfully

What Is a Transport Management System?

At its core, a Transport Management System is a platform that helps organisations plan, execute, monitor and optimise freight movements.

Depending on configuration and maturity, a TMS can support:

• Freight planning and mode selection
• Carrier allocation and booking
• Rate management and cost calculation
• Freight execution and tracking
• Freight invoice validation and accruals
• Carrier performance measurement
• Exception management and visibility

Importantly, a TMS is not just a system. It is an enabler of better transport decision-making.

Without clear processes, governance and data discipline, even the best TMS will struggle to deliver value.

Why TMS Adoption Is Increasing in Australia and New Zealand

Several factors are driving increased interest in TMS across the region.

1. Transport Costs Continue to Rise

Fuel volatility, labour constraints, regulatory requirements and network congestion have all put upward pressure on freight costs.

Organisations are under growing pressure to:

• Understand true landed cost
• Identify cost drivers
• Recover control over fragmented transport spend

A TMS provides the data foundation required to do this effectively.

2. Complexity Is Increasing

Many organisations now operate:

• Multiple warehouses
• Multiple delivery channels
• A mix of linehaul, metro, regional and last-mile freight
• Outsourced and in-house transport

Manual tools struggle to cope with this level of complexity.

3. Service Expectations Are Higher

Customers expect:

• Shorter lead times
• Reliable delivery windows
• Proactive communication

Transport performance is increasingly visible to customers—and failures are felt immediately.

4. Organisations Are Scaling

As volumes grow, informal transport management approaches break down.

A TMS allows organisations to scale without proportionally increasing headcount or risk.

When Implementing a TMS Makes Sense

A TMS is not a silver bullet. There are clear scenarios where implementation delivers meaningful value—and others where it does not.

Strong Indicators That a TMS Is Needed

Transport Spend Is Material and Poorly Understood

If an organisation cannot confidently answer:

• How much it spends on freight
• With which carriers
• On which lanes
• At what service level

…then a TMS can play a critical role.

Carrier Management Is Highly Manual

Common signs include:

• Bookings managed via email or phone
• Rate cards stored in spreadsheets
• Limited ability to compare carrier options

A TMS introduces structure and consistency.

Freight Decisions Are Decentralised

When different sites or teams make freight decisions independently, outcomes vary widely.

A TMS enables governance while still allowing operational flexibility.

There Is a Need for Better Visibility

Lack of visibility drives:

• Customer dissatisfaction
• Reactive firefighting
• Inefficient exception handling

A TMS can provide near real-time insights into what is happening across the network.

Volumes Are Growing or Becoming More Volatile

As networks scale, the cost of poor transport decisions increases rapidly.

When a TMS May Be the Wrong First Step

Just as important is knowing when not to implement a TMS—at least not yet.

Underlying Processes Are Broken

If:

• Transport rules are unclear
• Rate structures are inconsistent
• Carrier performance expectations are undefined

…then automating those problems will not fix them.

Transport Spend Is Small or Simple

For low-volume, low-complexity operations, a TMS may introduce unnecessary overhead.

In these cases, process discipline and better reporting may deliver more value.

Data Quality Is Poor

A TMS relies on:

• Accurate order data
• Clean master data
• Disciplined execution

Without this foundation, confidence in the system quickly erodes.

What a TMS Can (and Can’t) Do

Understanding the boundaries of a TMS is critical.

What a TMS Can Do Well

• Apply consistent business rules
• Automate carrier selection
• Calculate freight cost accurately
• Capture performance data
• Improve visibility and reporting

What a TMS Cannot Do Alone

• Fix poorly negotiated contracts
• Resolve carrier capacity issues
• Replace strong transport governance
• Compensate for unclear service strategy

A TMS amplifies the quality of the operating model it supports.

Common Pitfalls in TMS Implementations

Across many organisations, similar challenges appear time and again.

Treating TMS as an IT Project

One of the most common mistakes is framing TMS implementation as a systems exercise.

In reality, TMS programs are operating model change programs with technology as the enabler.

Over-Customisation

Highly customised solutions:

• Take longer to implement
• Cost more to maintain
• Reduce flexibility

Good implementations balance fit-for-purpose functionality with simplicity.

Inadequate Change Management

Transport teams often have deeply ingrained ways of working.

Without structured change management:

• Adoption suffers
• Workarounds emerge
• Benefits are diluted

Poor Carrier Engagement

Carriers are critical stakeholders in a TMS.

If they are not:

• Engaged early
• Supported through onboarding
• Clear on expectations

…execution and data quality suffer.

What Good TMS Implementation Looks Like

Successful TMS programs share several characteristics.

Clear Objectives from the Start

Organisations that succeed are clear on:

• Why they are implementing a TMS
• What problems they are solving
• What success looks like

This clarity shapes design decisions throughout the program.

Strong Alignment to Transport Strategy

A TMS should reflect:

• Preferred carrier strategies
• Mode optimisation principles
• Service commitments

Not override them.

Phased and Practical Delivery

Rather than trying to deliver everything at once, high-performing programs:

• Prioritise high-value use cases
• Roll out functionality in stages
• Build confidence early

Operational Ownership

The best implementations are owned by the business—not IT.

Transport, supply chain and operations leaders play an active role throughout design and deployment.

TMS and the Broader Supply Chain

A Transport Management System does not operate in isolation.

Integration with Warehousing

Warehouse cut-off times, dock schedules and load building all influence transport outcomes.

TMS and warehouse processes must be designed together.

Inventory and Network Strategy

Transport decisions affect:

• Inventory placement
• Safety stock requirements
• Network design trade-offs

A TMS provides data that supports better strategic decisions—but only if interpreted correctly.

Workforce and Capability

Introducing a TMS changes:

• Roles and responsibilities
• Skills required
• Decision rights

This needs to be planned, not left to chance.

Measuring Success After Implementation

Organisations should track benefits beyond system go-live.

Common measures include:

• Freight cost per unit
• Carrier performance against service levels
• On-time, in-full delivery
• Transport productivity
• Exception rates

Importantly, these metrics must be trusted by the business.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Trace Consultants supports organisations across Australia and New Zealand to implement Transport Management Systems that deliver real, lasting value.

Our role is not to sell software. It is to help organisations make better transport decisions, supported by the right technology.

Independent and Vendor-Agnostic

We are not aligned to any TMS provider.

This allows us to:

• Objectively assess options
• Avoid over-engineering
• Select solutions that fit the operating model

Focus on the Operating Model First

We start with:

• Transport strategy
• Governance and decision rights
• Carrier and contract structures
• Service requirements

Only then do we consider system design.

Practical Implementation Experience

Our approach is grounded in real operational experience across:

• Retail
• Manufacturing
• FMCG
• Healthcare
• Government and complex service environments

We understand how transport actually runs—not just how systems are configured.

End-to-End Support

Trace Consultants can support organisations through:

• TMS feasibility and business case development
• Requirements definition
• Vendor evaluation and selection
• Implementation governance
• Change management and adoption
• Post-implementation performance optimisation

Avoiding Common Traps

Perhaps most importantly, we help organisations:

• Avoid over-customisation
• Set realistic expectations
• Sequence change effectively

This significantly increases the likelihood of success.

Final Thoughts

Implementing a Transport Management System can be transformative—but only when done for the right reasons and in the right way.

A TMS is not a shortcut to transport excellence. It is a powerful enabler when:

• The operating model is clear
• Processes are defined
• Governance is strong
• Change is actively managed

For organisations across Australia and New Zealand grappling with rising freight costs, service pressure and increasing complexity, a well-implemented TMS can unlock visibility, control and scalability that simply cannot be achieved manually.

The key is not rushing to technology, but taking the time to design how transport should work—then using a TMS to make that future state real.

If your transport operation feels increasingly complex, opaque or reactive, the question may not be whether to implement a TMS—but how to do it in a way that genuinely makes a difference.

‍