Implementation is Everything: Why Strategy Fails Without Follow-Through

Co-authored by Tim Fagan (Senior Manager) and Shanaka Jayasinghe (Partner), Trace Consultants

There’s a familiar moment in too many organisations: the strategy deck gets approved, the steering committee congratulates itself, and then… everyone goes back to their day jobs.

Not because people don’t care. Not because the strategy is bad. But because the organisation hasn’t built the machinery to follow through—to turn intent into operating rhythms, behaviours, decisions, capability, and measurable outcomes.

In our work across Australia and New Zealand, we see it in every corner of the service and supply chain landscape: procurement transformation plans that never shift buying behaviour, workforce strategies that don’t change rostering on the floor, technology roadmaps that create more tools than adoption, and operating model designs that look tidy on a slide but collapse under Monday-morning reality.

The key takeaway is blunt by design:

Strategy fails without follow-through. The differentiator isn’t who can write the smartest recommendations—it’s who can help the organisation do the work. That bias to “doing” rather than “advising” is exactly where boutique specialised firms like Trace can add outsized value.

This article is a practical guide to closing the strategy-to-implementation gap. No hype. No magic frameworks. Just the disciplines that consistently separate strategies that sit on shelves from strategies that change performance.

The uncomfortable truth: execution is where strategies go to die

Harvard Business Review has long pointed out that two-thirds to three-quarters of large organisations struggle with execution—even when their strategy is sound.  That’s not a niche problem. It’s the default risk profile of change.

McKinsey’s work on transformations echoes the same theme: success remains elusive, and leaders often “lose from day one” when they don’t lock in the conditions that realise benefits.

Put simply: strategy is necessary, but it’s not sufficient.

In fact, a great strategy can make execution harder if it:

• creates too many initiatives at once
• spreads accountability thin
• assumes behaviour will change because a document says so
• depends on capabilities the organisation doesn’t yet have
• underestimates the operational drag of “business as usual”

The gap isn’t between thinking and doing. It’s between deciding and delivering.

Why strategy execution fails in the real world

Most post-mortems blame vague things: “lack of alignment”, “change resistance”, “competing priorities”.

Those are symptoms. The underlying failure modes are usually more specific and fixable.

1) No single owner is accountable for outcomes

A strategy may have “sponsors”, “stakeholders”, and “workstreams”—but if nobody owns a measurable outcome end-to-end, delivery becomes everyone’s problem and nobody’s job.

2) The organisation confuses activity with progress

Milestones get ticked off (workshops held, papers written, systems configured), while service levels, cost-to-serve, lead times, compliance metrics, or workforce stability barely move.

3) Coordination breaks down across functions

HBR’s work highlights a common myth: execution isn’t simply about vertical alignment; it’s about coordination across units that rely on each other.  That’s where strategies quietly unravel—handoffs, dependencies, and “someone else needs to do that part first”.

4) The plan ignores operational reality

Strategies often assume:

• perfect data
• stable demand
• ample change capacity
• cooperative stakeholders
• uninterrupted funding
• available talent
• time for training

Then reality shows up.

5) Change is treated as communications

A few emails and a town hall do not change behaviour. Kotter’s classic work on why transformation efforts fail lays out predictable pitfalls—like not creating urgency, not building a guiding coalition, and not anchoring changes into culture.

6) Benefits are not owned, measured, or protected

Even when early wins appear, they leak away because:

• definitions aren’t agreed
• baselines aren’t credible
• operational leaders aren’t accountable
• tracking becomes optional
• improvements aren’t embedded into standard work

McKinsey notes that certain actions are especially predictive of realising financial benefits—meaning benefits don’t happen by accident.

If any of this feels familiar, it’s because most organisations have built strong muscles for analysis and planning—and weaker muscles for disciplined delivery.

Implementation is not “the next phase”. It’s the strategy.

Here’s the mindset shift we want leaders to make:

Strategy is not a document. It’s a set of choices plus a delivery system.

If the delivery system is weak—governance, ownership, capability, cadence, measurement—then even brilliant choices fade into the background noise of BAU.

Implementation requires deliberate design:

• what will change (process, tech, roles, behaviours)
• who will own it (clear accountability, not committees)
• how work will be delivered (delivery engine and cadence)
• how change will stick (capability, incentives, standards)
• how value will be proven (benefits tracking and course-correction)

This is where boutique specialised firms can differentiate. It’s not that “big firms can’t implement”. It’s that many large programs become optimised for producing recommendations, artefacts, and governance rituals—rather than accelerating decisions and embedding change into operations.

The most valuable partners are the ones who roll up sleeves and help teams do the work: design, build, test, train, deploy, stabilise, improve.

The follow-through playbook: how to make strategy real

Below is a practical, repeatable approach we use in implementation-heavy work (supply chain, procurement, workforce, service operations, enabling technology). It’s not glamorous. It’s effective.

1) Translate strategy into a small number of “moves”

The fastest way to kill execution is to pursue everything.

A strategy should become a handful of moves that can be explained without slides. For example:

• redesign demand planning and inventory policies
• standardise procurement categories and contract governance
• optimise warehouse operating model and workforce standards
• uplift rostering capability to stabilise service and labour cost
• modernise reporting and operational control towers
• digitise specific workflows that reduce admin load and rework

Each move needs:

• a measurable outcome
• a target date (and interim measures)
• a clear owner
• the minimum scope required to move the metric

If you can’t articulate the moves, you don’t have an executable strategy—you have a wish list.

2) Build a delivery backbone (the “engine room”)

Strategies commonly rely on hope: “people will just do it.”

Instead, create a delivery backbone that answers:

• what are we delivering, this week?
• who is accountable?
• what decisions are needed, by when?
• what blockers exist, and who removes them?
• how are we tracking outcomes, not just tasks?

This can be a lightweight PMO or a transformation office, but the key is discipline, not bureaucracy.

A good delivery backbone:

• protects focus (fewer priorities, clearer sequencing)
• accelerates decisions (short cycles, documented trade-offs)
• makes progress visible (simple dashboards, honest status)
• keeps the organisation aligned (one narrative, one plan)
• prevents “quiet failure” (where programs drift without anyone saying it)

3) Design the operating model before you configure systems

A common trap: buy or configure technology, then try to force the operating model to fit the tool.

Implementation works better when you lock in:

• roles and accountabilities
• decision rights
• standard work (what good looks like)
• escalation paths
• performance metrics

Then configure technology to support that model—rather than hoping technology will create it.

This applies whether you’re implementing an ERP module, a planning system, a rostering platform, a procurement suite, or a low-code workflow.

4) Treat change as capability building, not messaging

If you want different results, people need:

• new skills
• new routines
• new tools they trust
• support while learning
• reinforcement (standards, coaching, consequences)

Kotter’s eight-step logic still lands because it focuses on building momentum through urgency, coalition, wins, and culture—rather than assuming change happens because leaders announced it.

Pragmatically, this means:

• train people in the work they actually do (not generic system training)
• embed “super users” and frontline champions
• run simulations and dry runs before go-live
• remove admin steps that compete with adoption
• set up a hypercare period with real support
• make new ways of working the default, not optional

5) Make benefits real, measurable, and owned

If benefits aren’t owned, they’re imaginary.

Effective benefits realisation includes:

• a baseline agreed with Finance and operations
• a clear definition (what counts, what doesn’t)
• leading indicators (early signs of movement)
• owners who can actually influence outcomes
• regular review where leaders act on what they see

McKinsey’s research reinforces that benefits realisation is tied to specific actions and conditions—meaning it needs active management, not passive reporting.

6) Run implementation in thin slices—prove value, then scale

Long, monolithic programs tend to:

• delay value
• increase risk
• exhaust stakeholders
• amplify scope creep

A better approach is to deliver in thin slices:

• pick one site, one workflow, one category, one roster cohort
• implement, stabilise, measure
• refine the model
• scale what works

This is how you build confidence and momentum without betting the farm.

“Doing” is the differentiator: why boutique specialised firms win in implementation

There’s a reason boutique firms can punch above their weight in delivery-heavy work:

We stay close to the operational detail

Implementation succeeds in the gritty details: how a planner actually forecasts, how a warehouse shift hands over, how a nurse in charge redeploys staff during a surge, how a buyer uses contracts, how exceptions are managed.

We bridge strategy, operations, and enabling tech

Most programs fail at the seams—between the “strategy people”, the “process people”, and the “systems people”. Boutique specialists can integrate these perspectives without turning every handoff into a new meeting series.

We build capability, not dependency

The goal isn’t to run your business forever. It’s to transfer a workable model, the tools to manage it, and the routines to sustain it.

We bias toward practical outcomes

Less theatre. More traction. The bar is simple: does this change improve service, cost, compliance, or workforce sustainability in a measurable way?

That last point matters in Australia and New Zealand right now. Organisations are operating in a tighter environment—labour cost pressure, service expectations rising, and constrained change capacity. The partners who can help you do the work (not just describe it) are the ones who create value.

What implementation looks like across common transformation areas

To make this tangible, here are examples of how “follow-through” plays out in areas Trace is often engaged in. (No made-up case study figures—just the types of work that move outcomes.)

Supply chain and logistics strategies

A strategy might call for “improved service, lower cost-to-serve, and reduced inventory”.

Follow-through looks like:

• defining service policies and inventory settings that match customer promise
• standardising planning cadences (S&OP/IBP routines)
• redesigning warehouse operating models (waves, pick paths, replenishment disciplines)
• clarifying roles (who owns forecast, who owns bias, who owns exceptions)
• implementing reporting that operational leaders actually use
• training teams in new ways of working and stabilising the change

Procurement transformation

A strategy might call for “category management uplift and savings”.

Follow-through looks like:

• building category pipelines with accountable owners
• improving data and spend visibility (definitions matter)
• standardising sourcing and contract governance
• embedding compliance into daily buying workflows
• establishing supplier performance routines (not occasional reviews)
• creating tools/templates that reduce cycle time and lift consistency

Workforce planning and rostering

A strategy might call for “meeting service targets while controlling labour costs”.

Follow-through looks like:

• demand and workload modelling (not just averages)
• defining staffing standards and skill mix requirements
• clarifying decision rights (who approves overtime, agency, surge changes)
• implementing scheduling tools aligned to operating model
• building fairness and transparency into rostering rules
• improving real-time visibility so leaders can act early

Enabling technology and workflow automation

A strategy might call for “digitisation and efficiency”.

Follow-through looks like:

• selecting high-value workflows (not platform sprawl)
• designing minimum lovable workflows (adoption-first)
• integrating lightly but intentionally
• building support models so tools don’t become shelfware
• measuring the reduction in admin time, rework, delays, and errors

This is the point: implementation is not a generic phase. It’s the craft of converting intent into a working system.

The implementation checklist leaders can use tomorrow

If you’re leading a strategy right now, ask these questions:

1. What are the 3–5 moves we’re actually making?
   If it’s 12 moves, it’s probably 3 moves pretending to be 12.
2. Who owns each outcome end-to-end?
   Not “supports”. Owns.
3. What will be different on the frontline in 30, 60, 90 days?
   If you can’t answer, you may be building artefacts, not change.
4. What’s our delivery cadence?
   Weekly rhythm, decision points, escalation mechanism.
5. What capabilities must change for this to work?
   Skills, routines, standards, tools.
6. How will we measure progress in outcomes (not activity)?
   Baselines, leading indicators, benefits owners.
7. What will we stop doing to make room for this?
   Implementation fails when it’s added on top of BAU with no trade-offs.

These questions sound simple. They’re hard because they force clarity.

How Trace Consultants can help

Trace is a boutique, specialised advisory firm—but our edge is not the advice. It’s the follow-through.

We help organisations across Australia and New Zealand bridge the gap between strategy and delivery by focusing on what actually drives outcomes: operating models, process discipline, enabling tech that gets adopted, and governance that accelerates rather than slows.

Here are common ways we support clients:

1) Strategy-to-implementation mobilisation

• translate strategy into a small set of executable moves
• define scope, sequencing, and resourcing
• establish governance that supports decisions and delivery
• set up benefits frameworks with Finance and operations

2) Program delivery and PMO support

• build a practical delivery backbone (cadence, reporting, escalation)
• manage dependencies across functions and vendors
• maintain focus on outcomes and risk reduction
• provide hands-on project and change resources where capacity is tight

3) Operating model and process implementation

• design standard work and role clarity
• embed routines (planning cycles, performance cadence, decision rights)
• support frontline adoption through training, coaching, and hypercare

4) Technology enablement with adoption at the centre

• requirements grounded in real workflows
• vendor and solution evaluation support
• implementation planning that protects time-to-value
• post go-live stabilisation and continuous improvement

5) Benefits realisation and performance uplift

• define measurable outcomes and baselines
• track leading indicators and embed accountability
• course-correct early (before “quiet failure” sets in)

We’re at our best when the job is not just to recommend—but to deliver, embed, and transfer capability. That’s the “doing” that makes boutique specialised firms valuable.

Closing thought: follow-through is the real strategy

Most strategies don’t fail because the analysis was wrong. They fail because the organisation didn’t build the conditions to execute—ownership, delivery rhythm, capability, adoption, measurement.

That’s why implementation is everything.

If you’re about to launch (or rescue) a transformation—supply chain, procurement, workforce, service operations, enabling tech—Trace can help you turn the plan into a working system and measurable outcomes.

Because at the end of the day, nobody rewards a beautiful strategy deck.

They reward results.

‍

Network Optimisation and Strategic Warehouse Reviews

A practical Australia–New Zealand guide to lowering logistics cost, lifting service, and future‑proofing your supply chain

If your supply chain feels like it’s working harder than it should, you’re probably right. In Australia and New Zealand, distance is unforgiving, freight markets can turn quickly, and warehouse labour and industrial property constraints don’t politely wait for your next budgeting cycle. Add customer expectations for faster delivery, channel complexity, and constant disruption—from weather events to port variability—and suddenly “the network” isn’t just a diagram on a slide deck. It’s your margin.

That’s where network optimisation and strategic warehouse reviews come in.

Done well, they’re not academic exercises or software-only projects. They’re practical, decision-ready programs that answer questions like:

• Are we holding inventory in the right places for the way customers buy today (and will buy tomorrow)?
• Do we have the right number of warehouses—and are they in the right locations?
• Are we using our existing sites as effectively as we could, or are we paying for inefficiency twice (labour and space)?
• What service levels can we realistically promise by region—and what do they cost?
• How do we plan for growth, volatility, sustainability targets, and risk without overbuilding?

This article breaks down what network optimisation and strategic warehouse reviews actually involve, common traps organisations fall into, and a clear pathway to decisions you can implement. It’s written for leaders who need outcomes, not buzzwords—whether you’re a COO, supply chain director, logistics manager, CFO, or property and procurement lead.

Why this topic matters right now in Australia and New Zealand

There’s a reason “we should review the network” keeps resurfacing in leadership meetings: small inefficiencies compound fast in ANZ.

A few realities tend to hit at once:

1) Geography makes mistakes expensive
In Australia, sending freight the wrong way—especially across long east–west corridors—turns into real dollars quickly. In New Zealand, inter-island movements, terrain, and the concentration of population in a handful of centres create their own set of trade-offs.

2) Customer expectations have shifted (and don’t shift back)
Even in B2B, lead times are compressing. In B2C, next-day delivery expectations vary by region, but the direction of travel is clear: customers want speed, accuracy, and visibility.

3) Warehousing constraints are structural, not temporary
Labour availability, automation lead times, and industrial property realities mean you can’t “just add a shift” or “just lease another building” without consequences. Capacity planning has to be deliberate.

4) Inventory is a service lever—and a cost sink
Network decisions directly drive inventory positioning and safety stock. A network that looks cheap on transport can quietly blow out working capital and obsolescence.

5) Resilience and sustainability have moved from nice-to-have to board-level
The network you design needs to cope with disruption and support emissions reduction efforts—without sacrificing service.

In short: network and warehouse decisions are no longer periodic tidy-ups. They’re strategic.

What network optimisation actually means (beyond the buzzword)

Network optimisation is the disciplined process of designing (or redesigning) how product flows from suppliers to customers across your distribution footprint—balancing service, cost, inventory, risk, and constraints.

It typically covers:

• Warehouse locations and roles (national DC, regional DCs, cross-docks, forward stocking locations, micro-fulfilment, etc.)
• Customer allocation rules (which customers ship from which sites, and when that changes)
• Transport mode and lane strategy (linehaul, metro, regional carriers, intermodal/rail where applicable, coastal shipping, direct-to-store, etc.)
• Inventory positioning and policy (cycle stock vs safety stock; postponement; decoupling points)
• Capacity planning (space, docks, automation throughput, labour, peak handling)
• Service design (lead times by region, cut-off times, delivery frequency, DIFOT targets)
• Constraints and realities (property, labour, technology readiness, transition risk, supplier lead times)

A key point: optimisation doesn’t mean chasing the mathematically cheapest network. It means selecting the best network for your strategy—and being explicit about trade-offs.

For example, an “optimal” model might suggest consolidating warehouses to reduce fixed cost. But if that adds two days to regional delivery and triggers lost sales, the cheapest network on paper becomes the most expensive decision you can make.

The best network work brings the full picture together: cost, service, inventory, and risk—then turns it into a decision leaders can back.

What a strategic warehouse review is (and why it’s not just a site walk-through)

A strategic warehouse review looks at each facility (and your portfolio overall) and asks: Is this warehouse fit for purpose today, and will it still be fit for purpose in three to five years?

It’s broader than operational auditing. It typically considers:

1) Role clarity: what is this site meant to do?

• Is it a national reserve and replenishment hub, or a fast-response regional node?
• Is it bulk storage, pick/pack, kitting, returns processing, or value-added services?
• Is the operating model aligned to demand and order profiles?

2) Capacity and constraints

• Storage capacity (pallet positions, racking, floor utilisation, height use)
• Throughput constraints (receiving, replenishment, picking, packing, dispatch)
• Dock and yard capacity
• Peak management readiness (seasonal volumes, promotions, project work)

3) Layout and flow

• Do travel paths make sense, or has the site evolved into a patchwork?
• Are fast movers genuinely “fast” in layout placement, or just fast in the ERP?
• Are you balancing efficiency with safety and congestion risk?

4) Labour model and productivity

• Shift design and coverage
• Indirect vs direct labour mix
• Training and cross-skilling
• Labour availability risk by region

5) Technology, data, and control

• WMS capability and configuration
• Slotting logic and replenishment rules
• RF discipline and inventory accuracy
• Visibility and reporting that supports daily management

6) Automation and mechanisation options (where appropriate)

A review should be practical: what is feasible in your building, with your workforce, and with your volume profile—not “automation because it’s trendy”.

7) Property and compliance

• Lease terms, expansion options, and landlord constraints
• Building suitability (clear height, column spacing, sprinkler, floor load)
• Safety, chain of responsibility, and site compliance requirements
• Sustainability opportunities (energy efficiency, solar readiness, waste management)

The output of a strong warehouse review is not a generic scorecard. It’s a set of prioritised initiatives, a capability roadmap, and clear recommendations on whether to fix, reconfigure, expand, relocate, or exit.

Network optimisation vs warehouse reviews: which comes first?

This is where many organisations get stuck.

Here’s a practical way to think about it:

• If you suspect the number and location of warehouses is wrong, start with network optimisation. Otherwise you risk spending money improving a site you shouldn’t keep long-term.
• If you’re confident the footprint is broadly right but performance and capacity are off, start with a strategic warehouse review to unlock improvements quickly.
• If you have significant change ahead (new channels, acquisitions, major growth, new service promise), do them as a combined program: network scenarios inform the role of each site, and warehouse reviews confirm feasibility and investment needs.

In many ANZ organisations, the best approach is iterative: model network options, pressure-test them with site reality, then refine.

Common triggers that signal it’s time for a review

If any of these feel familiar, you’re in the zone where network optimisation and warehouse review work pays off:

• Freight cost has crept up faster than sales growth—and no one can point to one clear cause.
• Service is inconsistent by region (metro is fine; regional is a constant firefight).
• You’re expediting more often “to protect the customer experience”.
• Inventory is rising, but availability still isn’t where it needs to be.
• Warehouses feel full all the time (or swing between empty and congested).
• You’ve added channels (e-commerce, marketplaces, wholesale, projects) and the operating model hasn’t caught up.
• Your 3PL arrangement is up for renewal, or performance has plateaued.
• You’re facing a lease expiry or a property constraint and need a decision, not a debate.
• Leadership wants resilience—yet the network depends heavily on one site or one corridor.

These triggers are rarely solved with a single initiative. They’re symptoms of a network that has drifted away from the current business reality.

A practical framework: how to run network optimisation and warehouse reviews that lead to decisions

Below is a proven, decision-focused pathway. It works whether you’re running the work internally, partnering with a specialist, or blending both.

Step 1: Define the outcomes (and the non-negotiables)

Start by making trade-offs explicit.

• What service levels matter—and where?
• What cost categories are in scope (transport, warehousing, inventory, capex)?
• What constraints are fixed (must keep a site, must maintain 2-day service, union requirements, automation already ordered)?
• What’s the planning horizon—3 years, 5 years, 10 years?
• What risks are unacceptable (single points of failure, change complexity, transition downtime)?

This is where alignment happens. Without it, teams build models to answer different questions and argue about “the numbers” instead of making decisions.

Step 2: Build a baseline you can trust

A baseline is the “current state” that the model and recommendations anchor to.

You’ll usually need:

• Customer order history (by region, channel, order lines, cube/weight)
• SKU velocity profiles and storage requirements
• Inventory policies and stockholding by site
• Transport spend by lane and mode (including accessorials)
• Warehouse costs (labour, occupancy, fixed vs variable, 3PL charges where relevant)
• Service performance data (OTIF/DIFOT, lead times, fill rates)

A common pitfall: organisations start scenario modelling before baseline validation. If the baseline is wrong, every scenario becomes a debate.

Step 3: Identify scenarios that reflect real strategic choices

Good scenarios are not “move DC from Sydney to Melbourne because the map looks neat.”

They reflect genuine options, such as:

• Consolidation vs regionalisation
• One national DC + cross-docks vs two national DCs
• Dedicated e-commerce fulfilment vs shared facilities
• Direct-to-store vs hub-and-spoke replenishment
• Increased use of intermodal for long-haul lanes (where feasible)
• Changes to delivery frequency and cut-off times
• Forward stocking for critical SKUs in remote regions
• Alternative property choices if a lease is expiring

Scenarios should be limited enough to be decision-ready—typically a handful of credible options plus a stretch scenario for learning.

Step 4: Evaluate scenarios on total value, not a single metric

A strong decision framework looks across:

• Transport cost (linehaul + last mile)
• Warehousing cost (fixed + variable)
• Inventory impact (safety stock changes, working capital)
• Service impact (lead times by region, ability to meet cut-offs)
• Resilience (single points of failure, disruption exposure)
• Practicality (property availability, transition risk, implementation time)

The key is to present outcomes in a way leaders can weigh, not just a “winner” declared by a model.

Step 5: Conduct strategic warehouse reviews to validate feasibility

This is the bridge between modelling and reality.

For shortlisted networks, warehouse reviews confirm:

• Can the site physically handle the new role and throughput?
• What capex or reconfiguration is required?
• What changes to process, labour model, or automation are needed?
• What’s the transition pathway without breaking service?

This is also where hidden constraints surface—dock congestion, yard limitations, unsafe flows, or WMS limitations that a spreadsheet won’t tell you.

Step 6: Build a business case that survives scrutiny

A decision-ready business case should include:

• Clear assumptions and sensitivity testing (fuel, labour, demand growth)
• One-off transition costs (dual-running, relocation, fit-out, redundancy, onboarding)
• Capex and payback where relevant
• Risks, mitigations, and a realistic timeline
• A phased roadmap if full change is too risky to execute at once

Leaders don’t just approve a network design. They approve change. So the path matters.

Step 7: Implementation planning (the part most programs underestimate)

Even the best design fails if implementation is vague.

Implementation planning should cover:

• Property strategy (search criteria, lease negotiation support, fit-out requirements)
• 3PL strategy (tendering, contracting, governance)
• Systems and data readiness (WMS/TMS impacts, master data, slotting)
• People and change management (roles, training, safety, consultation requirements)
• Cutover planning (inventory migration, parallel runs, contingency plans)
• KPI framework (what success looks like in the first 90 days and the first year)

ANZ-specific considerations that materially change network decisions

Network models can look clean until the local realities show up. In Australia and New Zealand, several factors commonly influence the “right” answer:

Australia: distance, state-based realities, and east–west trade-offs

• East coast density vs national reach: Many networks are naturally biased toward the east coast. But national customers (or mining, projects, and remote accounts) force a different calculus.
• Perth and WA: Servicing WA from the east can be viable for some SKUs and service promises, but it can also create persistent cost and service pain if expectations aren’t aligned.
• Regional and remote delivery: Lead times, carrier availability, and delivery frequency constraints can change what “good service” means outside metro corridors.
• Intermodal and linehaul strategy: There are cases where shifting mode or redesigning linehaul schedules is more valuable than moving warehouses.

New Zealand: concentration, inter-island complexity, and resilience

• Population concentration: Demand clustering can support fewer sites, but service expectations and geography still require careful planning.
• North vs South Island strategy: Inventory positioning and inter-island movements need to be deliberate—especially if you serve time-sensitive customers.
• Resilience considerations: Business continuity planning can have a stronger influence when geographic separation and disruption risk are factored in.

Trans-Tasman supply chains

If your supply chain crosses the Tasman, the network conversation becomes not just “where are the warehouses?” but:

• where do you decouple inventory,
• how do you manage lead times and variability,
• and what service promises are achievable without carrying excessive buffer stock.

These are design questions, not firefighting questions—so they’re best addressed through structured network work.

What “good” looks like: signs you’ve got the right network and warehouse strategy

When network optimisation and warehouse reviews have been done properly, you typically see:

• A clear definition of warehouse roles (and fewer “hybrid” sites doing everything poorly).
• Fewer urgent expedites and less reactive freight spend.
• Improved service consistency by region, even if absolute lead times vary.
• Inventory positioned intentionally, with clearer policies and fewer “just-in-case” decisions.
• A realistic capex roadmap—targeted investment rather than scattered fixes.
• Better cross-functional alignment: supply chain, sales, finance, and property all working from the same design logic.
• KPIs that connect network decisions to customer outcomes, not just internal efficiency.

Common mistakes (and how to avoid them)

Mistake 1: Optimising transport in isolation

Transport-only optimisation can accidentally increase warehouse handling, inventory, or service failures. The network must be evaluated end-to-end.

Mistake 2: Treating warehouse constraints as “operational issues”

If a site cannot physically meet future throughput, no amount of process discipline will fix it. That’s a strategic constraint, not a coaching opportunity.

Mistake 3: Overbuilding complexity

More nodes can improve service—but they can also increase inventory, management overhead, and execution risk. A simpler network that’s well-run often beats a complex network that’s fragile.

Mistake 4: Underestimating transition risk

Moving inventory, onboarding a new 3PL, or changing site roles can temporarily degrade service. Transition planning and dual-running costs must be included.

Mistake 5: Letting property drive the strategy

Cheap rent isn’t cheap if it adds linehaul cost, increases labour turnover, or forces poor warehouse flow. Property is part of the solution—not the strategy.

How Trace Consultants can help

Network optimisation and warehouse reviews sit at the intersection of strategy and execution. The value comes from making the right calls—and then making them real without breaking service.

Trace Consultants supports organisations across Australia and New Zealand to design, validate, and implement distribution and warehousing strategies that balance cost, service, inventory, and risk.

Here are the practical ways Trace can help:

1) Network strategy and scenario optimisation

• Clarifying your service promise by channel and region
• Building a baseline you can trust (cost-to-serve, freight, warehousing, inventory)
• Designing and testing credible network scenarios
• Translating outputs into leadership-ready trade-offs and decisions
• Sensitivity testing so you’re not hostage to a single assumption set

Outcome: a network direction you can confidently take to the executive team—supported by logic, not just instinct.

2) Strategic warehouse reviews that link operations to strategy

• Assessing whether existing sites are fit-for-purpose for current and future roles
• Identifying throughput constraints and practical improvement options
• Developing a targeted capex and operational improvement roadmap
• Validating feasibility of proposed network scenarios in the real world

Outcome: clear recommendations on where to invest, where to reconfigure, and where a site is simply the wrong tool for the job.

3) Business case development and investment planning

• Building a robust financial model including transition costs and benefits
• Creating staged roadmaps (e.g., quick wins now, footprint changes later)
• Supporting board-ready documentation and investment logic

Outcome: decisions that survive finance scrutiny and translate into action.

4) 3PL and operating model support (where relevant)

If your network direction involves outsourcing changes or new capabilities, Trace can support:

• Defining requirements and service levels
• Running tender and evaluation processes
• Designing governance and performance frameworks that stick

Outcome: a partner model that supports performance, not just contract compliance.

5) Implementation support—turning the design into reality

• Transition planning (inventory migration, cutover design, contingency planning)
• Process and layout redesign
• KPI frameworks and operational cadence design
• Change management support, ensuring teams can adopt new ways of working

Outcome: benefits realised in operations, not parked in a PowerPoint file.

The best time to involve support is often earlier than you think—before teams become committed to a preferred answer based on partial data, or before property deadlines force rushed decisions.

Practical questions to ask before you start

If you’re scoping network optimisation or a warehouse review, these questions will save time (and rework):

1. What decision do we need to make in the next 3–6 months?
   Be specific: renew a 3PL, choose a new DC, redesign service promise, plan capex, etc.
2. Which KPI are we trying to change—and what’s the current baseline?
   Cost-to-serve, OTIF/DIFOT, lead time, inventory days, pick rates, damage, claims.
3. Where do we believe the biggest lever is—transport, warehousing, inventory, or service design?
   Often it’s a mix, but one area usually drives the need.
4. What constraints are real and fixed vs assumed?
   A “must keep this site” assumption often turns out to be negotiable—or time-bound.
5. What does success look like operationally after the change?
   New network design without an operating model is just a map.

FAQ: Network optimisation and warehouse reviews

How often should we review our distribution network?

Many organisations benefit from a light-touch network refresh annually (to keep assumptions current) and a deeper review every 2–3 years, or whenever major triggers occur (growth, channel change, lease events, acquisition, sustained service issues).

What data do we need to start network optimisation?

At minimum: shipment history by customer and location, order profiles, SKU velocity, freight spend and lane data, warehouse cost and capacity data, inventory positioning, and service performance expectations. The best programs focus first on baseline accuracy, then scenarios.

Can we optimise the network without changing warehouses?

Yes—sometimes the biggest wins come from changing allocation rules, linehaul schedules, delivery frequency, inventory policies, or warehouse roles. But if a site is fundamentally constrained emphasising throughput or property suitability, footprint change may be unavoidable.

How do sustainability goals fit into network decisions?

Sustainability can be addressed by modelling emissions alongside cost and service, selecting lower-emission transport options where feasible, reducing unnecessary kilometres, and right-sizing inventory and warehousing energy profiles. The key is to include it as a decision criterion early—not as an afterthought.

What’s the difference between a warehouse audit and a strategic warehouse review?

An audit often checks compliance and operational performance against standards. A strategic review connects site reality to future business needs: role clarity, capacity, expansion feasibility, technology and automation readiness, and whether the site belongs in the future footprint at all.

Closing thought: the best networks are designed, not inherited

Most distribution networks aren’t intentionally designed end-to-end. They evolve—one new customer, one warehouse extension, one “temporary” overflow site that becomes permanent.

Network optimisation and strategic warehouse reviews give you a chance to step back and ask: What network do we actually need now—and what will we need next? Then they give you a way to make those decisions with confidence.

If your organisation is facing property deadlines, rising logistics costs, inconsistent service, or growth that your current footprint can’t comfortably absorb, it’s worth taking a structured look. And if you want that work to lead to practical, implementable decisions—Trace Consultants can help you move from analysis to action, with an approach grounded in the realities of Australian and New Zealand supply chains.

‍

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.