Recovering margin in a cross-border truckload network
Asset-based truckload carrier · 1,200 tractors · US–Mexico
$5.8M of run-rate EBITDA realised in nine months — 84% of the value identified in the Flash Scan, without new technology spend in the first phase.
- EBITDA margin
- 7.1%8.9%▲ improvement
- Deadhead
- 21.4%15.8%▼ improvement
- Accessorial capture
- 69%93%▲ improvement
- On-time delivery
- 93.8%95.6%▲ improvement
The situation
Volume had grown 14% in two years while EBITDA margin fell from 9.2% to 7.1%. Leadership had three competing explanations — fuel, driver costs and pricing — and a TMS upgrade proposal on the table.
The CFO wanted to know where margin was really being lost before approving any capital.
Trigger:EBITDA and value under pressure
How it unfolded — gate by gate
- 1
Flash Scan
1 dayGoEight weeks of load, lane and billing data. Four corridors and the billing process flagged as the main leaks.
- 2
Value Scan™ + Value Assessment™
4 weeksGoLane- and customer-level cost-to-serve; benchmarks for deadhead, utilisation and accessorial capture.
- 3
Value Blueprint™
3 weeksGoFive initiatives with owners, business cases and a 100-day value track. TMS upgrade deferred until the operating model was defined.
- 4
Proof of Value™
6 weeksScaleBackhaul and pricing change piloted on one corridor against a fixed baseline.
- 5
Value Assurance & Realisation™
OngoingMonthly realised-margin review in the Decision Office with the CFO and COO.
Results
- Detention and accessorials billed systematically from event data: +$2.0M a year.
- Bottom 10% of lanes repriced or exited: +$1.5M.
- Backhaul rebalanced on four corridors: +$2.3M after the pilot proved the case on one.
- TMS investment re-scoped to the defined operating model, cutting the original budget by a third.
What made the difference
- Averages hid the problem: the leak was concentrated in four corridors and one process.
- Billing fixes funded the larger network moves.
- Deferring technology until the operating model was clear avoided buying the wrong system.