Bloated RFPs and the RFP Domino Effect
Keywords: Transportation Management (TMS), Request for Proposal (RFP), Supplier Relationship Management (SRM).
Many enterprise applications are becoming functionally rich. Transportation Management Systems (TMS) are no exception. But certain types of functionality are often very difficult to operationalize in practice and thus often never actually get implemented. This could lead to "RFQ bloat" that ultimately adds unnecessary cost and/or complexity to a TMS project.
TMS and Continuous Moves
The functionality included in TMS solutions has exploded in recent years, enabling these solutions to support a wider variety of modes and international shipments. In the process of developing a supplier selection tool for TMS, ARC looked at a broad range of potential TMS functionalities, including a type of optimization functionality known as "continuous moves." While we needed to include this functionality in our tool, we also wondered how often clients actually use this feature. To find out, we spoke with five different suppliers of TMS or transportation managed services.
Continuous Moves Defined
Continuous moves involve a shipper stringing loads together for its carrier to enable the carrier to better utilize a particular truck. In return, the shipper gets a discount. Often small deadhead (non-revenue-producing) moves are involved. So, for example, perhaps the shipper was paying $1.50 per mile on the first leg and for the deadhead move and then $1.35 per mile on the backhaul. There are other variations on continuous moves.
ARC Advisory Group clients can view the complete report at this Link.
If you would like to buy this report or obtain information about how to become a client, please Request ARC Info
ARC Advisory Group