Transport is where operational reality and financial planning argue about the same number. Operations plans a network against volume, lanes and carrier capacity; finance plans a freight budget against a very different set of assumptions - and when the two do not reconcile, cost-to-serve becomes a spreadsheet nobody fully trusts. Our work is to put network capacity and freight cost on one platform, so operations and finance are planning against the same assumptions instead of negotiating a gap at month-end.
Our added value
We build network and cost-to-serve models on Anaplan and Pigment, with a focus on the part that usually breaks: connecting volume and lane-level operational plans to a freight budget finance can actually close against. Three of our consultants hold Anaplan's Certified Master Anaplanner distinction, the platform's highest individual certification, and apply it to carrier scenario modeling, lane-level cost allocation and network capacity constraints - not a generic finance template repurposed for transport. We deploy in MVP cycles of three to six months: one network or cost-to-serve view live first, then extended once operations and finance both trust the number.
Our convictions for your transport project
- Cost-to-serve is an allocation design problem before it is a reporting problem - get freight, handling and customer-level cost drivers modeled correctly, and the report writes itself.
- A network plan needs carrier and lane-level detail to be useful - an aggregate freight budget that ignores lane mix will always miss the scenario that actually happens.
- Finance and operations need to plan against one set of volume assumptions - a freight budget built on different numbers than the operational network plan is a budget built to be wrong.
- Scenario modeling earns its keep here: carrier rate changes, fuel cost swings and network redesigns are normal, not edge cases - the model should make testing them routine.
Our transport expertise domains
Network capacity planning - Model capacity by lane and carrier, so network decisions are made against real constraints, not an aggregate volume number that hides where the network actually breaks.
Cost-to-serve - Allocate freight, handling and distribution cost down to the customer or channel level, so profitability decisions are made on real cost-to-serve, not a blended average.
Freight budgeting & carrier scenarios - Build freight budgets that flex with carrier rate changes and volume scenarios, so a rate renegotiation or a demand swing is a model run, not a re-plan from scratch.
Finance & operations reconciliation - Connect the operational network plan and the freight budget to the same volume and cost assumptions, so finance and operations stop reconciling two versions of the truth.
