Case 02 · Logistics
A global logistics provider, top five by volume. The process was rating and billing. The number was revenue leakage recovered.
The situation
Freight rating is where contract complexity meets operational reality. Accessorials, fuel adjustments, dimensional rules and negotiated exceptions all had to be applied correctly to every shipment, and reconciliation happened long after the invoice went out. Leakage was known to exist and was hard to attribute: some of it was rating error, some was missed accessorials, some was simply past due. At this volume, fractions of a percent were material.
The baseline
We measured before we touched anything: invoices by lane and customer, rating exceptions per thousand shipments, days sales outstanding, credit and rebill rates, and recovered versus written-off leakage over a defined window. Finance co-signed the baseline. The number chosen was recovered leakage, verified from their own ledgers.
The change
The rating logic was rebuilt around the contract rather than the invoice run, so terms are applied once, consistently, at the point of movement. Reconciliation moved from periodic to continuous. Exception handling was redesigned around cause: rating errors are corrected upstream instead of credited downstream. The system now carries two billion dollars of annual revenue and flags anomalies while they are still cheap to fix.
The reading
Verified from the provider's own financial systems: material recovery of previously leaked revenue, past-due exposure reduced, and rating exceptions falling quarter on quarter as upstream causes were closed rather than patched.
What they own
The rebuilt rating and billing flow, the anomaly detection running against live movements, the integrations to their systems of record, and the operating documentation their team runs it from.
Start
If this looks like a process you run, the fastest next step is a conversation about the number that would matter.