Lessons from my time sourcing transports - Part 2



In the previous instalment on my experiences as a consultant, I wrote about how a tool like TenderEasy could have helped me save great amounts of time during the freight tendering process, especially during the analysis phase, compared to working manually. This time, I will touch upon the precision and quality of calculations when using a tool compared to my experiences working manually.

Have you ever taken a class in physics? Well if you have, you are probably aware that whatever experiment you try in a test setting will not apply to the real world, since most often air resistance and friction are assumed to be zero. So your result, however correct it may seem, will not be viable in the real world. Well, oftentimes a freight tendering process can work the same way. Let me explain:
Analysing a complex tender structure with multiple suppliers’ bids is always difficult – thousands of lanes and price points to compare with a multitude of offers each and for different assumed scenarios. Sound overwhelming? It did to me, which is why I (and I know I’m not alone in this) often went for the approach of simplifying transport patterns and assuming facts which I could then build my analysis on. Problem is, the result from such an analysis will most often be no more accurate than that in the science class room.
Having seen the process from both ends, I can conclude that assumptions and simplifications, although useful and necessary in many circumstances, are often quite far removed from reality. Had I been using a tool like TenderEasy, on the other hand, I would have been able to produce analyses for a number of different scenarios and apply it to the actual statistical data available, giving me results that are actually compatible with reality! It might seem obvious, but as it turns out, there can be quite a bit of money on the table in knowing exactly what you are comparing to when analysing your bids.