What a Logistics Company Actually Needs Before Going Autonomous

Every operations leader we've spoken to has the same reaction when they hear "autonomous operations." They assume it means a massive transformation project. New systems. A data team. Months of integration work. Executive sponsorship for a programme that might deliver results in eighteen months — if it delivers at all.

That assumption comes from experience. Most technology deployments in logistics follow the same pattern: six months of discovery, another six of integration, a painful change management phase, and a system that works differently enough from your existing process that adoption becomes its own project. According to the most recent Annual 3PL Study, 28% of logistics providers cite integration with existing systems as the biggest barrier to adopting AI — not the AI itself.

So when we tell ops leaders that a logistics company can have autonomous systems handling real operational work within 24 hours of a single assessment, the scepticism is justified. It sounds like a pitch.

This guide is the practical version. What you actually need. What you don't. And why the requirements are different from what the industry has conditioned you to expect.

---

What you need

### Operational systems your team actively uses

It doesn't matter whether you're running CargoWise end-to-end or stitching together a TMS, a separate WMS, an ERP for finance, customs compliance tools, and a visibility platform with EDI holding it all together. Most logistics operations are some version of the second — and that's not a problem to solve before going autonomous. It's the environment autonomous agents are designed to work within.

What matters is that your team works inside these systems every day. Booking shipments in the TMS. Tracking exceptions through your visibility platform. Processing invoices and rate confirmations between the TMS and your ERP. Filing customs entries. Sending carrier communications. Pulling tracking updates.

Autonomous agents connect to whichever systems your coordinators use — reading from them, writing to them, operating inside them the same way your people do. There's no migration. No parallel platform. No new interface your team needs to learn. If the work happens across CargoWise and NetSuite and FourKites and carrier email, then that's where the agents work.

The only requirement is that the core operational activity is happening inside systems, not entirely in people's heads or on paper. If a coordinator's entire workflow lives in a personal spreadsheet with no connection to any platform — that's a conversation worth having. But for any operation running a modern TMS with supporting systems around it, the technical infrastructure is already there.

### Operational processes that exist — even if they're undocumented

This is where most technology vendors lose logistics companies. They ask for process documentation, SOPs, decision trees, data dictionaries. They want the operation mapped out in a format their engineers can translate into rules.

The problem is that the real process in most logistics operations looks nothing like the documented one.

The SOP says to email the carrier after a no-show. Your senior coordinator knows to call the carrier's ops manager directly on their mobile because that's the only way to get a truck rescheduled before the delivery window closes. The SOP says to escalate a customs hold to the compliance team. Your best people know that a hold on a shipment from a specific port is almost always a documentation issue that can be resolved with a single email to the right broker.

The SOP says to process rate confirmations by checking the TMS rate against the carrier's quote. Your experienced team knows that certain carriers consistently add fuel surcharges that aren't in the original quote, and that the threshold for disputing versus absorbing varies by lane, by volume commitment, and by how critical that carrier is to your network during peak season.

MIT research found that 73% of supply chain AI failures come from incomplete data visibility — not from bad algorithms. Most AI projects fail in logistics because they try to work from clean, structured data that doesn't reflect how the operation actually runs. The approach here is the opposite: start with how your people actually work, then build systems that replicate those patterns.

That undocumented expertise is not a problem to be solved before deployment — it's the raw material that makes autonomous systems actually work. The assessment process is designed to extract exactly this: how your team really operates, not how they say they operate. The judgment calls, the carrier-specific knowledge, the escalation instincts, the shortcuts that only exist because someone's been doing this for fifteen years.

If your team does the work consistently — even if nobody's written it down — there's enough to build on.

### Three hours of your team's time

One structured assessment conversation. No preparation required beyond having the people in the room who actually do the work. Not the people who manage the people who do the work — the coordinators, the exception handlers, the carrier relationship managers who make the daily decisions.

The assessment isn't a technical audit. It's a conversation about how they work.

What happens when a carrier no-shows on a dedicated lane versus a spot booking. How they decide when to escalate a detention claim versus negotiate directly. Which carriers respond to email, which only respond to WhatsApp, and which need a phone call. How they handle a customs hold differently when it's a high-value pharmaceutical shipment versus standard consumer goods. What their process is when a visibility platform shows a shipment is going to miss its delivery window — who do they call first, what options do they evaluate, and how do they decide between rebooking, expediting, or communicating a delay to the customer.

The systems they tab between during an average morning. The reports they pull before a customer QBR. The spreadsheets they maintain because no single system captures the full picture. The workarounds they've built because the TMS doesn't handle a specific scenario the way their operation needs it to.

That conversation becomes the configuration layer for every agent deployed. It's why two freight forwarders running the same TMS will get systems that behave completely differently — because the operational intelligence is theirs, not a generic template.

---

What you don't need

A data science team. Autonomous operations in logistics aren't driven by machine learning models trained on your historical data. They're driven by codified operational expertise — the decision patterns your best people already use. You don't need anyone who can build a model. You need people who can explain how they do their job.

Clean historical data. You don't need to spend months normalising your shipment data, building training sets, or tagging exceptions. The system learns from how your team works now, not from what happened two years ago in a spreadsheet nobody maintained.

A unified tech stack. You don't need to finally finish that integration project before you can go autonomous. Your TMS doesn't talk to your ERP cleanly. Your visibility platform is a separate login. Your customs tool has its own workflow. That's the reality of every logistics operation we've seen — and it's a non-issue. Autonomous agents work across fragmented systems the same way your coordinators do: checking one system for shipment status, another for invoice data, another for tracking updates, and email for carrier communications.

An integration architecture. There's no middleware layer. No API mapping project. No six-week technical scoping exercise. If your systems have APIs — and every major TMS, WMS, and ERP does — the connection happens during deployment, not before it. EDI connections your team already uses become data feeds the system reads natively.

A change management programme. Your team keeps working in the same systems they already know. The difference is that when they open their TMS in the morning, routine work has already been handled. Exceptions are classified. Carrier communications are sent. Status updates are complete. Rate confirmations are matched. POD requests are chased. Invoice discrepancies are flagged. The change isn't in how they work — it's in what they spend their time on.

Executive sponsorship for a twelve-month transformation. The first system is live within 24 hours. Your team reviews outcomes, adjusts thresholds, and decides where to expand. The investment case builds from real results, not a business case deck.

---

How the transition actually works

Week one. Agents handle detection, classification, and drafting across the processes identified in the assessment. Every action goes through your team for approval — across the TMS, ERP, customs platforms, carrier communications, wherever the work lives. Coordinators review work instead of doing it from scratch. Like having a competent new hire who needs sign-off before sending anything.

Weeks two to three. As accuracy proves out on routine work — rate confirmations, POD requests, standard status updates, invoice matching, tracking exception alerts — approval gates relax for those categories. Your team focuses review time on complex exceptions: multi-party disputes, customs escalations, carrier performance issues, customer-sensitive shipments.

Month two onwards. Routine operational work runs autonomously. Your team manages by exception. They step in where their judgment genuinely matters — carrier relationship decisions, complex compliance scenarios, customer escalations, strategic capacity planning — and let the system handle the volume that was consuming 70% of their day.

For a team of five coordinators, that shift is the equivalent of gaining three to four full-time people focused on the work that actually builds operational advantage — without hiring anyone.

---

Why this is different from what you've seen before

There's a reason most AI companies avoid logistics. The work runs on a combination of structured data in systems, unstructured communication across email and messaging, institutional knowledge in people's heads, and relationships that can't be reduced to an algorithm.

A freight coordinator's job isn't to follow a script. It's to navigate a constantly shifting landscape of carrier availability, customer requirements, regulatory constraints, and operational exceptions — using judgment built over years of doing the work.

Most AI approaches try to replace that judgment with models trained on historical data. That's backwards. The approach that works is to codify that judgment — to capture the decision patterns, the escalation logic, the carrier-specific knowledge, the exception-handling instincts — and build systems that can execute those patterns at scale. Not replacing the expertise. Multiplying it.

That's what the assessment extracts. That's what the system runs on. And that's why the requirements are simpler than the industry has been led to believe.

---

The real question

The barrier to autonomous operations in logistics was never the technology, and it was never your readiness. It was the assumption that deploying it required the same transformation programme as every other enterprise technology project.

It doesn't. If your team has operational systems they use every day, processes they follow consistently, and three hours for a conversation — you have everything you need.

getevos.ai →