survey results
Questions & responses
Transportation planning remains a hybrid process
When asked which method best describes their primary approach to daily transportation planning, the most common response was an enterprise TMS with advanced optimization functionality, selected by 29% of respondents.
However, the broader picture is more mixed. While enterprise TMS platforms are the most common planning approach, many organizations continue to rely on:
- Spreadsheets
- TMS platforms with limited planning capabilities
- A combination of system-generated plans and manual tools
The result is a hybrid planning environment where technology supports the planning process, but manual intervention remains common.
Transportation planning remains a hybrid process
When asked which method best describes their primary approach to daily transportation planning, the most common response was an enterprise TMS with advanced optimization functionality, selected by 29% of respondents.
However, the broader picture is more mixed. While enterprise TMS platforms are the most common planning approach, many organizations continue to rely on:
- Spreadsheets
- TMS platforms with limited planning capabilities
- A combination of system-generated plans and manual tools
The result is a hybrid planning environment where technology supports the planning process, but manual intervention remains common.
Primary methods for daily transport planning
Enterprise TMS with advanced optimization functionality
TMS with limited planning or optimization capabilities
Manual planning using spreadsheets
Enterprise TMS with advanced optimization functionality
TMS with limited planning or optimization capabilities
Manual planning using spreadsheets
This finding helps explain many of the challenges highlighted elsewhere in the survey. When planners work across multiple systems, supplement TMS functionality with spreadsheets, or rely on manual workarounds, planning becomes harder to scale, standardize, and adapt as conditions change.
The results suggest that simply having a TMS is not enough. Organizations also need planning solutions with the functionality, integration, usability and flexibility to support day-to-day operations.
Complexity is driven by customer requirements and operational variability
Customer-specific delivery requirements are the leading source of transportation planning complexity.
Complexity is driven by customer requirements and operational variability
Customer-specific delivery requirements are the leading source of transportation planning complexity. More than two-thirds of respondents (69%) cited strict delivery windows, compliance requirements and other customer-specific demands as key challenges.
Customer requirements are only part of the story. Planners must also manage a wide range of operational constraints, including changing orders, dock scheduling, multi-leg networks, carrier capacity, specialized equipment and cross-border operations.
The challenge is balancing these competing requirements while continually adapting as conditions change. Effective transportation planning depends not only on creating an efficient initial plan, but also on continuously evaluating tradeoffs and adjusting plans as new information becomes available.
Manual processes remain the top planning challenge
Nearly half of respondents (48%) selected time-consuming manual processes as one of their top three challenges – representing the biggest challenge facing transportation planning teams today.
Despite years of investment in transportation technology, manual work remains a significant burden for many planning teams. Planners continue to spend considerable time gathering data, manipulating spreadsheets, adjusting plans and communicating exceptions.
The biggest challenges for planning teams
Manual processes remain the top planning challenge
Nearly half of respondents (48%) selected time-consuming manual processes as one of their top three challenges – representing the biggest challenge facing transportation planning teams today.
Despite years of investment in transportation technology, manual work remains a significant burden for many planning teams. Planners continue to spend considerable time gathering data, manipulating spreadsheets, adjusting plans and communicating exceptions.
Difficulty adapting plans to changes or disruptions
Time-consuming manual processes
Planning tools lack required functionality
Systems cannot effectively support operational constraints
Time-consuming manual processes
Difficulty adapting plans to changes or disruptions
Planning tools lack required functionality
Systems cannot effectively support operational constraints
The survey also highlights why manual work remains so common. More than one-third of respondents (36%) said their planning tools lack the functionality they need, while another 26% said their systems cannot effectively support operational constraints such as equipment requirements, delivery windows or loading slots.
Difficulty adapting plans to changes or disruptions was also cited by 36% of respondents. This aligns closely with the complexity factors identified earlier in the survey. When orders, capacity, time slots or execution conditions change, planners must respond quickly. If planning depends heavily on manual work or disconnected systems, making those adjustments becomes much more difficult.
The qualitative responses reinforce this point. Several respondents expect automation to reduce routine manual work while allowing planners to focus more on exceptions and higher-value activities.
As one respondent put it, organizations are moving toward “more automation or changing from regular planning to exception management.” Another anticipated “an easier and less manual way to handle day-to-day logistics tasks.”
Transportation planning is becoming more dynamic
The survey results suggest that transportation planning requires ongoing adjustment rather than a one-time planning exercise.
When asked how frequently they need to adjust or re-optimize transport plans after they are initially created:
- 43% of respondents said they make occasional adjustments, or a few changes per day
- 36% update plans frequently throughout the day
- 19% said their plans remain mostly stable
- 2% reported operating in a continuously replanned, near real-time environment.
Transportation planning is becoming more dynamic
The survey results suggest that transportation planning requires ongoing adjustment rather than a one-time planning exercise.
When asked how frequently they need to adjust or re-optimize transport plans after they are initially created:
- 43% of respondents said they make occasional adjustments, or a few changes per day
- 36% update plans frequently throughout the day
- 19% said their plans remain mostly stable
- 2% reported operating in a continuously replanned, near real-time environment.
How frequently do you need to adjust or re-optimize transport plans after they are initially created?
Occasionally: a few adjustments per day
Frequently: plans are updated throughout the day
Rarely: plans remain mostly stable
Continuously: dynamic, near real-time replanning
Occasionally: a few adjustments per day
Frequently: plans are updated throughout the day
Rarely: plans remain mostly stable
Continuously: dynamic, near real-time replanning
These findings suggest that most organizations operate somewhere between static planning and continuous optimization. Planners routinely adjust transportation plans throughout the day, but typically within existing processes, operational constraints and system limitations.
Rather than continuously replanning everything, organizations need the ability to identify when replanning is necessary, evaluate alternatives, and selectively adjust plans as conditions change. In other words, the future of transportation planning is likely to depend on more intelligent replanning, not simply more frequent replanning.
The biggest capability gap: scenario planning and simulation
When asked which capabilities are lacking in their current TMS or require integration with other tools, respondents identified scenario planning and simulation as the top gap, selected by 48% of participants.
Which capabilities are lacking in your current transportation management system (TMS) or require integration with other tools to support your planning process?
The biggest capability gap: scenario planning and simulation
When asked which capabilities are lacking in their current TMS or require integration with other tools, respondents identified scenario planning and simulation as the top gap, selected by 48% of participants.
Data integration across systems
Scenario planning / simulation
Real-time visibility into execution
Scenario planning / simulation
Data integration across systems
Real-time visibility into execution
The findings suggest that transportation planners need more than visibility; they need better decision support. When capacity changes, orders are delayed or dock schedules shift, planners need to evaluate alternatives quickly and understand the tradeoffs among cost, service, asset utilization and operational feasibility.
The next-highest capability gaps reinforce this theme. Respondents also identified data integration across systems (40%), real-time visibility into execution (36%) and real-time replanning capabilities (31%) as key needs. Together, these findings suggest that organizations are looking for more connected planning environments where planning, execution, visibility and decision support work together rather than as separate processes.
The qualitative responses echo this need for greater integration. One respondent said their organization is looking for “a more integrated set of solutions across TMS, routing, telematics, safety and quality control,” while another highlighted the need for “better integration of different sources of data.”
As transportation planning becomes more dynamic, disconnected data and isolated systems make it harder to respond effectively. Better integration enables planners to make faster, more informed decisions as conditions change.
