Connect with us

Non classé

Ocean Freight Procurement in 2026: A Research-Based Approach

Published

on

Ocean Freight Procurement in 2026: A Research-Based Approach

December 4, 2025

Blog

Forwarders and BCOs rely heavily on tendered contracts in order to plan pricing for global ocean freight movements. But what if large swaths of the tendered contracts are simply completely irrelevant? Banking on joint research with the MIT Center for Transportation, this article challenges the basic assumption of tenders, makes a case for more strategic use of the spot market, and forces a hard, data-backed look at actual performance.

There have been plenty of examples of volatility and disruption in freight markets over the last few years, from the pandemic and port strikes to the Red Sea crisis and trade wars.

These events have triggered demand swings, impacted operations and lead times, and often sent freight rates climbing or plunging – all of which affect shipper and forwarder decisions on how to allocate freight volumes between contracts and the spot market.

Across modes, having a freight contract in place does not always mean shipments will get moved. Dr. Angi Acocella, a Freight Lab researcher at MIT’s Center for Transportation and Logistics, conducted research on procurement decisions and performance in the FTL market, and, via a joint survey with Freightos, on container shipping procurement as well. These studies explored how shippers make tendering decisions and provide insights on how to improve strategic procurement decisions across modes to reduce risk and costs and improve reliability.

See Dr. Acocella’s presentation of the survey results here.

The studies show that:

Both road and ocean shippers rely heavily on contracts – with most shipping at least 70% of volumes by tender – and mostly treat spot as a backup option. They also show that a significant share of contracts – on average 70% of FTL contracts – go unused.

Unused lanes come with unnecessary costs, including a 7% year-on-year increase in contract rates, while the strategic use of spot for these types of lanes can mean significant savings in both time spent on wasted negotiations and in shipping rates.

Index-linked contracts have also been shown to increase revenue for carriers and provide better reliability and lower costs for shippers.

And digital tools that provide visibility of contract performance, market intelligence, and a dynamic channel to communicate and share information with LSPs are also key to optimizing the freight procurement process.

What follows are the key findings from these recent surveys and the best practices for freight procurement and tendering that emerge from the research.

Are All Ocean Tenders Actually Used? The Findings

The surveys showed that in the FTL market, most shippers moved 90% of their volumes by contract with the remaining 10% going by spot. Ocean shippers also relied heavily on long term contracts, with more than half moving 70% of volumes or more via contracts.

In both FTL and container, the spot market is mostly used as a backup to contracts. The move to spot is most often due to the uncertainty, unreliability or unavailability of the contracted capacity, or to unexpected swings in their own demand. Often these pushes to spot are triggered when spot prices become significantly out of sync with contract rates.

At the same time, 40% of shippers do report using the spot market as a first option on some lanes, usually for trades with infrequent, less predictable and lower volumes than contracted lanes. But this finding also means that 60% of ocean shippers rely on contracts even for low volume lanes.

Freight Lab research found a Pareto principle at work for FTL shippers: in general, about 20% of shipper lanes account for about 80% of their volumes, with a long tail 80% of lanes accounting for just 20% of – mostly low or inconsistent – volumes.

For many of those long tail lanes, however, volumes don’t materialize at all. Acocella refers to lanes with unused contracts as “ghost lanes,” and research shows that shippers underestimate how many contracts go unused.

A majority of both FTL and container shippers estimate a ghost rate of 25% or less. But FTL data suggests that on average, closer to 70% of contracted lanes go unused.

Ghost lanes come with added costs beyond the resources wasted negotiating unused contracts. MIT research shows that high rates of FTL ghost lanes one year resulted both in lower acceptance rates that year and in 7% higher contract costs – often at levels higher than spot rates – the following year as carriers factor in a premium to compensate for unreliability.

The Actionable Insights

These findings – the volatility in these markets, the heavy reliance on contracts which can often become unreliable, the use of spot mostly as a second-choice backup, and the share of contracts that go unused – begged the key research questions:

What is the optimal balance between freight contracts and spot shipments? What approach is most likely to maximize reliability and efficiency and minimize costs?

The resulting Freight Lab research produced the following key components to constructing an optimized contract/spot procurement portfolio*

*These results are based primarily on research for the FTL market, with applicability to ocean likely based on the above survey and with more research on this area underway now.

Learn from past performance: A look at contract portfolio and spot usage and performance – its mix, utilization and reliability by lane – from the previous year is critical to decision-making for the coming year. Shippers and forwarders should determine where contracts performed well, where they were underused (or not used at all), and price levels paid relative to the market.

Based on this picture, companies can determine where and with which LSPs to renew contracts on highly or regularly utilized lanes. For lanes where little or no volumes materialized shippers and forwarders should consider a strategic direct-to-spot approach, given the high costs of ghost lanes.

Respect the market cycle: Shippers and forwarders should also consider where the market is in its cycle, and how contracts performed in previous instances of this phase. In tight markets it generally does not benefit shippers to negotiate hard for discounted contract rates as – often regardless of a shipper’s history with a given carrier – contract price competitiveness becomes the carriers’ priority. In soft markets, shippers have more leverage and should contract with their most reliable carriers. But here too, low-ball rates can often mean poorer performance, especially if market rates increase.

Index link some contracts – Contracts linked to an index allow rates to fluctuate in some relationship to the spot market. Significant spot changes are a main driver of poor contract performance: when spot rates climb too high above a contract’s rate, carriers roll volumes or apply premiums. When spot rates fall too low, shippers no-show and shift to the spot market or renegotiate contract levels.

Allowing a contract to float along with an index removes this incentive to deviate from the contract. And though index linking exposes carriers and shippers to fluctuations in revenue or costs, this risk can (either be accepted as the cost of reliable service/volumes, or) be hedged through derivatives called Forward Freight Agreements, effectively locking in contracted service at a set cost or revenue level even while paid rate levels may change.

Learn more about index-linked contracts here.

Acocella advises shippers to pilot index linking with a carrier they trust and with whom they have an existing relationship, and on mid-volume lanes – especially where volumes may not be consistent throughout the year – to start. Once the concept is proven, this tool can be expanded to other lanes. Research in the FTL market showed that index-linked contracts, especially on these types of lanes, often resulted in carriers realizing higher revenue and shippers getting better reliability, and often lower costs than when using typical contracts or just spot.

Track performance – Shippers and forwarders should not only evaluate past performance during tendering season, but should monitor performance and utilization during the contract period too. Generating visibility of your contract (and spot) portfolio, and tracking where volumes are materializing and which contracts are being underused, will let shippers understand how carriers are performing and how they, the shippers, are performing as a partner. Understanding where you stand can help you adjust in real time rather than carry unnecessary costs or incur higher costs or poorer reliability down the road.

Leverage tech – New tech tools help evaluate past performance or track the current status of freight tenders, costs, volume (or lack thereof) by lane, and spot usage, all of which is crucial to optimizing freight portfolios.

These tools also represent the opportunity for a significant leap in freight procurement efficiency: Beyond digital tools that help shippers compare their contract portfolio to market prices and provide market intelligence to support decision making, logistics tech is also enabling more efficient tendering by creating a dynamic, digital channel to communicate, negotiate, share data, and even make spot or contracted bookings with LSPs.

Tech that simplifies or automates parts of the freight procurement process, or otherwise reduces the time spent on negotiations and procurement, is increasingly key to overall streamlined procurement.

The Bottom Line: Don’t Tender Everything

Recent research shows a heavy reliance on long-term contracts for both road and ocean freight shippers, with the spot market mostly reserved as a backup. But shippers also carry significant wasted costs through unused or underutilized contracts, with analysis showing better efficiency via the strategic use of spot for these lanes.

These studies suggest certain key procurement best practices for shippers, including investing in visibility of their contract/spot portfolio and performance; the strategic use of spot on low volume lanes; consideration of the current phase in the market cycle; implementation of index-linked contracts, and leveraging digital tools to provide that necessary visibility as well as automate or digitize time-consuming tasks like requesting tender offers, spot rates and even placing bookings.

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post Ocean Freight Procurement in 2026: A Research-Based Approach appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Supply Chain Planning Is Collapsing Into Execution and That Changes the Software Stack

Published

on

By

Executive thesis. The traditional separation between planning and execution is becoming structurally obsolete. Competitive advantage is shifting from producing a better periodic plan to shortening the cycle from operating signal to decision to executable response.

Periodic planning is giving way to continuous decision cycles

The legacy model assumed that supply chain planning was organized around periodic cycles: assemble the data, produce a forecast, optimize a plan, publish it, and then let execution teams absorb the consequences. That model is difficult to sustain when demand, inventory, transportation capacity, labor, supplier performance, and customer commitments can change faster than the formal planning cadence. The material shift is not that planning disappears. It is that planning becomes a continuously refreshed decision process that sits much closer to execution.

Execution constraints now define whether a plan is credible

A plan is only as credible as its understanding of the constraints that determine whether it can be executed. Available inventory, dock capacity, carrier acceptance, labor, production status, supplier reliability, and warehouse throughput can no longer be treated as downstream details. As those signals move upstream, planning systems need tighter connections to systems of execution and a more explicit model of what is feasible now—not what is mathematically desirable.

The architecture is reorganizing around decisions, not application silos

This changes the technology architecture. Traditional planning platforms, control towers, visibility systems, decision-intelligence layers, and execution applications overlap around the same questions: what changed, what is the business impact, what alternatives exist, and which action should be taken? The answer is unlikely to be one monolithic application. It is more likely to be an architecture in which planning models, event data, enterprise context, decision logic, and execution services interact with far less latency than they did in the classic plan-then-execute model.

Decision latency is becoming a first-order performance metric

The implication for supply chain leaders is that planning quality cannot be judged only by forecast accuracy or optimization quality. Decision latency matters as well. A technically superior plan that arrives after the operating window has closed has limited value. Enterprises should therefore examine how quickly their architecture can detect a material deviation, recalculate the relevant alternatives, expose tradeoffs, obtain the required approval, and propagate the decision into execution.

Buyer criteria must move from module coverage to decision performance

The evaluation question is no longer whether a planning product has the right modules. Buyers need to test how the system behaves when the operating environment departs from the plan. As a result, using real constraints, real data dependencies, realistic exception scenarios, and the systems that will ultimately execute the response. The strongest planning architecture will not eliminate judgment. It will make judgment faster, better informed, and easier to convert into controlled action.

For organizations reevaluating planning technology, the practical starting point is to define the decisions the planning environment must support, the constraints that make those decisions executable, and the evidence required to trust the result. The Logistics Viewpoints Supply Chain Planning Software: Buyer’s Guide provides a structured framework for that evaluation, including planning scope, architecture, scenario analysis, integration, and buyer proof points.

Executive implication

Leaders should evaluate planning technology as part of a continuous decision system, with execution constraints, decision latency, and closed-loop response treated as core design criteria.

Go deeper: provides the durable buyer, architecture, and implementation reference for this topic. Planning, Execution & Visibility connects this analysis to the broader Logistics Viewpoints research architecture.

Related Logistics Viewpoints research

2026 Supply Chain Planning Market Map
2026 Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map

Go Deeper

Read the full Supply Chain Planning Software: Buyer’s Guide.

Explore the broader Planning, Execution & Visibility domain for related Logistics Viewpoints research and analysis.

The post Supply Chain Planning Is Collapsing Into Execution and That Changes the Software Stack appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Why WMS Architecture Now Matters as Much as Feature Breadth

Published

on

By

Warehouse management systems are being pushed into a continuously changing execution environment, making architecture as important as feature breadth. The pressure is not simply to add more automation or AI, but to keep the operating plan aligned with physical reality as that reality changes.

Labor scarcity, tighter customer cutoffs, omnichannel fulfillment, higher sku complexity, automation investment, faster order cycles, and the need to coordinate people and machines in real time are shortening the useful life of any plan. A decision that was correct an hour ago can become wrong when a carrier rejects, a dock closes, an order changes, a piece of automation fails, or a priority customer needs a different response. That architectural emphasis follows naturally from The Warehouse Is Becoming a Cyber-Physical System, where software design directly shapes the behavior of labor, automation, inventory, and physical flow.

The relevant operating events include a late inbound trailer, a constrained dock, a wave that threatens a carrier cutoff, an automation cell that goes down, or an urgent order that must be reprioritized without destabilizing the rest of the facility. These are not unusual edge cases; they are the normal variability of modern logistics. The market is therefore rewarding platforms that can absorb change without forcing every exception into a manual coordination loop.

Architecture is becoming a product differentiator

The operating architecture is ERP and OMS upstream; WMS at the inventory-and-work core; WES/WCS, robotics, conveyors, sortation, labor systems, YMS, parcel, and TMS around the execution edge. This means provider differentiation increasingly depends on event latency, API and network connectivity, data-model quality, workflow controls, and the ability to preserve a coherent operating state across boundaries.

Feature parity can hide large architectural differences. One platform may expose an event after the fact; another may use that event to re-evaluate priorities, prepare a response, and push a governed action into the next system. Both can claim visibility or AI. Only one has compressed the operating loop.

AI matters when it changes the decision cycle

The next layer of value is not AI as a separate product. It is intelligence embedded into the decisions the category already owns. WMS is moving from a transactional warehouse application toward a real-time execution and orchestration layer that coordinates inventory, labor, automation, and downstream transportation constraints The strongest use cases combine reliable execution data, explicit constraints, explainable recommendations, and controlled action rather than treating a model output as the endpoint.

A serious evaluation should test operational fit, configurability without excessive customization, automation integration, real-time work orchestration, data and API architecture, scalability, implementation model, upgradeability, and measurable warehouse outcomes. Buyers should also measure inventory accuracy, order cycle time, throughput, labor productivity, dock-to-stock time, order accuracy, exception volume, automation utilization, and recovery time after disruption. Those measures reveal whether the new capability is actually improving flow, responsiveness, cost, and service or simply creating more software activity.

The market shift is therefore structural. Technology boundaries are blurring because the work itself is becoming more connected. Providers that understand the operating loop will increasingly look different from products built around a static transaction model.

Architecture shows up in warehouse operating metrics

Architecture can sound abstract until it is translated into the measures a distribution center already cares about. Event latency affects how quickly supervisors react to a blocked zone. Integration quality affects whether automation receives the right work at the right time. Data integrity affects inventory accuracy and pick completion. Decision orchestration affects dwell, cutoff performance, backlog, and the amount of work managers have to manually resequence.

For that reason, buyers should connect architecture questions to measurable outcomes. Ask providers to demonstrate what happens when an inbound trailer is late, a work area becomes constrained, an automation cell stops, or an urgent customer order enters after work has been released. The stronger platform is the one that preserves a coherent operating state and adapts without requiring a chain of manual reconciliation.

Related Logistics Viewpoints research

2026 Warehouse Management Systems Market Map
The New Architecture of Logistics
Systems Engineering in Logistics
The Digital Backbone of the Warehouse: Trends Shaping the 2026 WMS Market
Previous in this series: What Is a WMS in 2026? The Warehouse Management System Is Becoming Something More

Request the 2026 Warehouse Management Systems Market Map Brochure

The 2026 Market Map is designed to help organizations understand the structure of the WMS market, evaluate provider differences, and identify the capabilities most relevant to their operating environment. If your organization is evaluating WMS platforms or preparing a shortlist, I would be glad to provide the Market Map brochure and discuss the evaluation questions and provider differences most relevant to your requirements.

Request the WMS Market Map Brochure

For technology providers

Providers may request the brochure, discuss the research framework, or contact me to confirm how their capabilities are represented in the market assessment.

Discuss the research or confirm your profile

The post Why WMS Architecture Now Matters as Much as Feature Breadth appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Shipsy Connects Transportation Orchestration With Exception Response

Published

on

By

Transportation management is expanding beyond planning loads and tendering freight. Modern platforms are increasingly expected to coordinate carriers, track execution, optimize routes, manage exceptions, communicate with stakeholders, and use live operating data to adjust decisions while freight is moving.

Shipsy is positioned around that broader logistics-orchestration model. Its cloud platform spans transportation management, carrier allocation, freight procurement, shipment tracking, route optimization, first-mile through last-mile workflows, and analytics. The company also emphasizes AI-enabled capabilities intended to automate planning and execution decisions across increasingly complex logistics networks.

The connection to exception management is significant. Transportation generates a constant stream of deviations: capacity changes, missed pickups, route delays, delivery risks, documentation problems, and customer-service exceptions. A platform that already coordinates transportation workflows has the opportunity to detect those events, assess their impact, and automate an appropriate response inside the same operating environment.

The buyer question is how well those capabilities scale across real-world complexity. Organizations should evaluate optimization quality, carrier and system connectivity, geographic depth, data latency, workflow configurability, and governance for automated actions. The most useful AI in transportation will be the AI that reliably improves execution, not simply the AI that adds another interface.

Shipsy is included in the Logistics Viewpoints Transportation Management Systems MarketMap and Autonomous Exception Management MarketMap. The combination reflects the increasingly close relationship between transportation management and the systems responsible for identifying and resolving operational exceptions.

The post Shipsy Connects Transportation Orchestration With Exception Response appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending