Carrier caps, minimum commitments and “this depot always ships from that plant” are all reasonable rules. Each one also costs money. We think that cost should be a number, not a feeling.
Every logistics network runs on rules. Some are written into contracts: a carrier has been promised a minimum volume. Some are risk policies: no single carrier should take more than a certain share of any depot. Some are just habits: this depot has always been served from that plant. Each rule exists for a reason. Very few teams know what each one costs.
A restaurant group might insist on buying vegetables from at least two suppliers so a single bad delivery cannot shut the kitchen. That is a sensible rule. It probably means paying a little more on some days than buying everything from the cheapest supplier. The owner is usually happy to pay that premium for resilience, but only if they know roughly what it is. If the rule quietly costs far more than expected, they might set the split differently. Without the number, the rule is never revisited.
FreightPlan treats sourcing rules as constraints, written down once and checked on every plan. The optimiser minimises landed cost for the whole network, choosing plant, carrier and truck for every depot in whole trucks, subject to six rules:
| Rule | What it says |
|---|---|
| Demand | Every depot gets its tonnage, or the shortfall is reported |
| Plant output | No plant ships more than it makes this month |
| Fleet, in truck-days | Long lanes use more truck-days than short shuttles |
| Carrier share | No carrier takes more than its cap of any depot |
| Commitments | Contracted minimum volumes are honoured |
| Whole trucks | You cannot dispatch two-thirds of a truck |
The first three and the last are physics. You cannot ship what you have not made, or send part of a truck. Carrier share and commitments are choices. They are the ones worth pricing.
The method is simple: solve the network with the rule, solve it again with the rule relaxed or changed, and compare. The difference in landed cost is what the rule costs this month. FreightPlan has a policy what-if screen for exactly this, where a carrier-share policy is priced live, and the published budget shows what each lane should cost and what your sourcing policies cost.
The answer can go either way:
We are not saying the cheapest plan is always right. Resilience, service and relationships are real reasons to pay more. The argument is narrower: a rule you pay for should be a rule you chose, at a price you know. When the price is visible, the conversation between logistics and finance changes from “why is freight so high” to “is this cap worth what it costs”. That is a much better meeting. Contract terms with carriers are commercial and legal decisions; confirm changes with your legal and finance advisers.
For how the network plan is built, read freight network optimisation and the comparison of lane-by-lane and network planning. The full library is on the FreightPlan guides page.
Solve the freight network with the cap and again without it or with a different cap, and compare landed cost. FreightPlan’s policy what-if screen prices a carrier-share policy live.
Plant output, fleet capacity, demand and whole trucks are physical limits. Carrier-share caps and minimum commitments are policy choices that can be priced and revisited.
No. Resilience and service can justify paying more. The point is to know the price of each rule so it is a deliberate choice.
See it on your own data. FreightPlan — Budget freight, explain the gap. Book a 30-minute working session with an engineer.
