Discover Freightos Enterprise

The post Ocean rates climb again even as fuel costs ease – June 23, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

For years, the transportation management system market has been framed as a software market. A shipper buys a TMS to plan, execute, settle, and analyze freight. The software manages routing guides, tenders loads, tracks shipments, calculates freight costs, audits invoices, and produces reports.

That model still exists. But it no longer fully describes the market.

The boundaries between TMS, managed transportation, freight brokerage, digital freight platforms, control towers, and 3PL services are becoming less clean. Buyers may enter the market asking for software, but what they often need is a better transportation operating model.

That distinction matters.

The future TMS buyer may not be buying software alone. They may be buying technology, execution capacity, market access, analytics, workflow automation, and outcome ownership in a combined package.

Download the TMS Market Research Executive Summary for a strategic view of how TMS buying decisions are expanding beyond traditional execution software.

The Clean Category Lines Are Breaking Down

Historically, the categories were easier to separate. A TMS vendor sold software. A broker sourced capacity. A managed transportation provider operated freight on behalf of the shipper. A 3PL provided logistics services. A visibility provider tracked shipments. A control tower monitored network performance.

Those distinctions have become harder to maintain. Some brokers now offer shipper-facing platforms that look like TMS-lite systems. Some TMS vendors support embedded procurement and capacity access. Some managed transportation providers combine software, people, analytics, and carrier management in one service. Some 3PLs offer control tower capabilities. Some visibility and network platforms are expanding into execution workflows.

The market is converging around the buyer’s actual problem: transportation is difficult to operate well. The buyer may not care whether a provider fits perfectly into a legacy category if the provider can help move freight more reliably, reduce manual work, improve decision-making, and create better cost and service outcomes.

Buyers Want Outcomes, Not Just Functionality

A traditional software evaluation might focus on features. Can the system tender loads? Can it build shipments? Can it rate freight? Can it track milestones? Can it produce dashboards?

Those questions still matter. But many shippers are facing a broader set of challenges.

They may lack transportation staff. They may have fragmented regional operations. They may struggle with carrier performance. They may not have strong freight procurement analytics. They may lack the data quality needed to use a sophisticated TMS well. They may need help redesigning processes, not just digitizing them.

In those cases, software alone may not solve the problem.

A TMS can enable better transportation management, but it does not automatically create transportation excellence. The organization still needs process discipline, carrier strategy, exception management, data governance, and analytical capability.

That is why buyers increasingly consider hybrid models.

The Rise of Embedded Services

One of the most important developments in transportation technology is the blending of software and services. This is not simply outsourcing under a new label. It reflects the reality that transportation outcomes depend on both system capability and operational execution.

A shipper may want a TMS, but also need freight procurement support, carrier onboarding, routing guide design, spot market access, exception management, freight audit support, performance analytics, customer communication workflows, network optimization, and continuous improvement. Some organizations will build these capabilities internally. Others will look for providers that combine technology and managed services.

This creates opportunities for TMS vendors, 3PLs, brokers, and managed transportation providers, but it also creates confusion. The buyer has to determine whether they are selecting software, a service model, a capacity provider, or an operating partner. Often, the answer is some combination of all four.

Why Brokers and TMS Vendors Are Moving Toward Each Other

The convergence between TMS and brokerage is especially important.

Brokers historically made money by sourcing capacity and managing transactions. But as digital freight models evolve, brokers increasingly need technology interfaces that make it easier for shippers to quote, tender, track, and analyze freight.

At the same time, TMS vendors recognize that execution decisions often depend on capacity availability and market pricing. A TMS that can recommend a carrier but cannot help solve a capacity problem may be limited. Embedded capacity options can make the software more useful.

This does not mean every TMS becomes a broker or every broker becomes a TMS vendor. But the overlap is increasing.

The shipper does not care about category boundaries as much as they care about whether freight moves reliably, cost-effectively, and with minimal operational friction.

The Control Tower Complication

Control towers add another layer to the convergence. Many companies want an integrated view of transportation performance, exceptions, inventory impact, customer risk, and network disruption. That requirement does not fit neatly into one traditional category.

A control tower may be delivered by a software vendor, a 3PL, a managed transportation provider, or an internal team using multiple tools. It may include visibility, analytics, workflow management, decision support, and escalation processes.

This reinforces the broader point: the buyer is often not simply buying a TMS. The buyer is trying to improve transportation control.

How Shippers Should Evaluate the Market

As the category boundaries blur, shippers need to be more precise about their own needs. The first question is not simply which TMS has the best feature set. The first question is what operating problem the organization is trying to solve.

Some shippers need better software because they already have the internal transportation team, procurement discipline, and process maturity to use it effectively. Others need a more complete operating model because they lack staff, carrier analytics, procurement support, or exception-management capacity. Still others need better access to capacity, stronger control tower visibility, or a more standardized transportation process across regions and business units.

These distinctions matter. Buying software when the real problem is operating capability can lead to disappointment. Outsourcing execution when the real need is better internal process control can create a different kind of problem. The best buying process starts with a clear view of which transportation capabilities should be owned internally and which are better delivered through a partner.

The Market Will Reward Clear Operating Models

The future transportation technology market will not be defined only by software functionality. It will be defined by operating models.

Some shippers will want best-of-breed TMS platforms they operate themselves. Others will want managed transportation services with strong technology. Others will want embedded brokerage and procurement capabilities. Others will want network platforms that connect execution, visibility, and analytics.

There is no single right answer.

But there is a wrong answer: buying software when the real problem is operating capability, or outsourcing execution when the real need is better internal process control.

The TMS market is no longer just about systems of record or systems of execution. It is becoming part of a broader transportation decision and operating infrastructure.

The future TMS buyer may still buy software.

But increasingly, they will also be buying a model for how transportation gets managed.

Download the TMS Market Research Executive Summary for a strategic view of how the TMS market is moving toward software, services, analytics, and decision infrastructure.

The post The Future TMS Buyer May Not Be Buying Software Alone appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

The routing guide has long been one of the central control mechanisms in transportation management. It reflects negotiated rates, preferred carriers, service expectations, contractual commitments, and years of transportation experience. For many shippers, it is the operating logic behind freight execution.

But that logic is increasingly being tested.

As AI-enabled transportation management systems evolve, tendering will become more dynamic, more automated, and more analytical. Instead of transportation teams manually working through static routing guides, systems will continuously evaluate carrier performance, capacity conditions, service risk, cost, spot market alternatives, appointment constraints, and historical behavior.

Download the TMS Market Research Executive Summary for a strategic view of how AI, automation, and decision intelligence are reshaping transportation management.

The result is a major shift in transportation execution: autonomous tendering.

This does not mean humans disappear from freight procurement. But it does mean the traditional routing guide will be forced to evolve from a static sequence of carrier preferences into a dynamic decision framework.

The Routing Guide Was Built for a More Stable Market

The traditional routing guide makes sense in a world where conditions are relatively stable. A shipper runs an annual or semiannual bid. Carriers are awarded lanes. Primary, secondary, and backup carriers are ranked. The TMS tenders freight according to that hierarchy.

When the market is balanced and carrier commitments hold, this model works well enough. It creates structure, supports compliance, and helps transportation teams manage cost.

But freight markets are rarely static for long.

Capacity tightens. Spot rates move. Carrier service performance changes. Facilities become congested. Customer requirements shift. Weather, labor constraints, port delays, equipment imbalances, and regional disruptions alter the real economics of a shipment.

A routing guide created months ago may not reflect today’s best decision.

This is where autonomous tendering becomes powerful.

What Autonomous Tendering Actually Means

Autonomous tendering is not simply automated tender sequencing. Basic tender automation has existed for years. The more important development is decision automation.

An AI-enabled TMS can evaluate multiple variables at the time of tender. It can consider historical acceptance rates, recent lane-level performance, real-time capacity conditions, cost and service tradeoffs, facility constraints, appointment availability, customer priority, spot market alternatives, emissions considerations, and exception risk. The system is no longer only asking, “Who is next in the routing guide?” It is asking, “Which option is most likely to produce the best outcome under current conditions?”

That may still mean tendering to the primary carrier. But it may also mean skipping a carrier with deteriorating performance, selecting a carrier with better recent reliability, using a digital freight option, or escalating the shipment before failure occurs. The point is not automation for its own sake. The point is better execution under changing conditions.

Why This Is Controversial

Transportation has always depended on judgment. Experienced transportation managers know which carriers perform well, which lanes are difficult, which facilities create dwell time, and which relationships matter. Freight procurement is not purely mathematical.

That is why autonomous tendering can feel threatening.

It challenges the idea that the routing guide should be the primary expression of transportation strategy. It also exposes uncomfortable realities. Some routing guides are stale. Some carrier rankings reflect old assumptions. Some decisions are shaped by habit rather than current performance. Some “preferred” carriers are preferred because they won a bid, not because they are the best choice today.

AI does not eliminate the need for procurement judgment, but it does make weak logic more visible.

From Static Compliance to Dynamic Optimization

For years, transportation organizations have measured routing guide compliance. That made sense when the routing guide was considered the best available plan. But in a more dynamic market, strict compliance is not always the right goal.

A better question is whether the shipment was executed according to the best available decision at the time.

This changes the role of the routing guide. It becomes one input into a broader optimization model, not the entire model. Contracted rates and carrier commitments still matter, but they must be evaluated alongside service risk, acceptance probability, market conditions, and business priority.

The future routing guide may look less like a fixed ladder and more like a decision policy.

Human Oversight Still Matters

Autonomous tendering should not be confused with unmanaged automation. Transportation is too important to leave entirely to opaque systems. Shippers will need guardrails, approval thresholds, exception rules, and auditability.

The system may be allowed to autonomously tender standard freight within defined parameters. But high-value shipments, strategic customers, expensive expedites, unusual equipment, and contractual exceptions may still require human review.

The best model is not human versus machine. It is human-supervised autonomy.

Transportation managers define the strategy, constraints, and escalation rules. The system executes within those boundaries, learns from outcomes, and surfaces exceptions when human intervention is valuable.

What Buyers Should Look For

Shippers evaluating TMS capabilities should look beyond whether a platform can automate tenders. The more important question is whether it can improve tendering decisions.

A strong system should be able to evaluate acceptance probability, incorporate recent carrier performance, consider spot market intelligence, and explain why a carrier was selected. It should also allow users to define operating rules by customer, lane, region, facility, shipment priority, or business unit. In practice, this means the system should not merely execute a routing guide. It should help transportation leaders understand whether the routing guide is still producing the intended cost, service, and reliability outcomes.

The best platforms will also learn from tender rejections, service failures, and changing market conditions. That learning loop is what separates basic execution automation from transportation decision intelligence.

The Routing Guide Is Not Dead, But It Is Being Redefined

The routing guide will not disappear. Shippers still need contracted capacity, procurement discipline, and carrier strategy. But the routing guide will no longer be enough on its own.

Autonomous tendering is coming because the transportation environment is too dynamic for static decision logic. The winners will be the organizations that treat AI not as a replacement for procurement expertise, but as a way to operationalize that expertise at scale.

The future routing guide will not simply tell the system who to tender to first.

It will tell the system how to decide.

Download the TMS Market Research Executive Summary for a strategic view of how autonomous tendering, routing guide strategy, and transportation execution are evolving.

The post Autonomous Tendering Is Coming for the Routing Guide appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.