Delivery Exception Intelligence for a Regional 3PL
A regional third-party logistics operator cut SLA breach discovery from T+18 hours to under 90 minutes — across 400+ daily shipments, without a single engineering sprint.
400+ daily shipments, 90-minute breach discovery, zero manual pull from day one.
At a Glance
Key Metrics
Breach Discovery
T+18h → 90min
Time from a shipment trending toward breach to an account manager knowing about it.
Time to Live
16 days
Read-only connection to first live exception alert.
Daily Shipments
400+
Shipments evaluated on every single run, no manual sampling.
The Situation
A regional 3PL managing 400+ daily shipments had its operational data split across three systems that never talked to each other: delivery status and proof-of-delivery logs in a transport management system, live vehicle location and ETA estimates in a GPS telematics platform, and customer SLA window commitments stored in a contract database. When a shipment ran late, the first signal was typically a customer escalation — not an internal alert. Every morning, two ops managers spent two hours pulling TMS exports, cross-referencing GPS logs, and manually comparing each shipment against its contracted delivery window. By the time the report was ready, many of the exceptions it described were already resolved, compounded, or on their way to becoming formal SLA penalties.
Data sources
Transport Management System
Shipment status & delivery logs
GPS Telematics Platform
Live vehicle location & ETA
SLA Contract Database
Customer delivery window commitments
Failure events
What Was Breaking
Why manual operations couldn't scale
Three systems, no cross-check.
Delivery status lived in the TMS, live location and ETA in the GPS telematics platform, and SLA windows in the contract database — nothing compared them to each other automatically.
Detection depended on the customer noticing first.
An internal alert rarely arrived before the customer's escalation call did.
The manual pull was a fixed daily cost.
Two ops managers spent two hours every morning cross-referencing TMS exports against GPS logs — and by the time the report was ready, many of the exceptions it described were already resolved, compounded, or on their way to a formal SLA penalty.
The Approach
Connect your sources
TMS, GPS telematics, and SLA database connected read-only — 16 days to live, no engineering sprint.
Configure SLA rules per customer tier
Delivery windows, deviation thresholds, and escalation routing written in plain language by ops.
Autonmis watches every shipment
Continuous cross-source evaluation. Alerts fire before breach, not after the customer calls.
After
Transport Management System
Shipment status & delivery logs
GPS Telematics Platform
Live vehicle location & ETA
SLA Contract Database
Customer delivery window commitments
Autonmis
Governed Intelligence Layer
Knowledge Base
rules · thresholds · logic
Connected read-only to the TMS, telematics platform, and SLA contract database in a single setup session. The Knowledge Base was configured with delivery window definitions, carrier deviation thresholds, and customer tier escalation rules — written in plain language by the ops lead, not an engineer. Autonmis then ran continuous cross-source evaluation: comparing live ETA estimates from telematics against contracted delivery windows from the SLA database, and flagging shipments that were trending toward breach before they crossed the threshold.
Exception alerts routed to the relevant account manager with full context — shipment ID, current ETA, contracted window, and minutes to breach. A structured morning brief covered overnight exceptions, sorted by severity and customer tier. The manual export process was retired on day one of go-live. The workflow went from initial scoping to production in 16 days, with zero engineering involvement after source connection.
The Workflow
Results
T+18 hours → under 90 minutes
SLA breach discovery lag
Previously discovered when a customer escalated or at morning review
Audited against the manual TMS-and-GPS cross-reference baseline measured before connection.
2 hours → zero
Daily morning exception report prep
Two ops managers freed from manual TMS pull and cross-reference
Audited against the two ops managers' daily manual-pull time prior to go-live.
16 days
Time to first live exception alert
From initial source connection to production monitoring
400+ shipments
Monitored continuously across three sources
No manual sampling — every shipment evaluated on every run
Zero
Engineering dependency for ongoing operation
Ops team manages rules, thresholds, and escalation logic independently
Governance Note
Every deviation threshold here — what counts as 'trending toward breach' for a given customer tier — is a rule the ops lead set in the Knowledge Base, not a hardcoded default; change the tier definition and every future evaluation uses it.
Implementation
Time to live
16 days to first live exception alert
Sources connected
3 (TMS, GPS telematics, SLA contract database)
Engineering dependency
Zero
Ready to see it in your stack?
We can scope your use case to a live workflow
in the first session.
Three sources. No engineering dependency. First automation in under three weeks.
Book a 30-minute callContinue reading
Other case studies
See how other operations teams have deployed agentic intelligence across industries.
Collections Exception Intelligence
A mid-market NBFC eliminated 90 minutes of daily manual reconciliation and reduced exception discovery lag from 14 hours to under 2 minutes.
Read case study QSR & RetailCampaign ROI Intelligence for Multi-Location Operators
A large franchise operator replaced weekly manual campaign reporting with a live cross-source dashboard — from raw sources to executive brief in 21 days.
Read case study Voice AI WorkflowsAutomated Quality Governance for AI Training Data
A voice data operation replaced manual QC review with a 7-stage automated evaluation pipeline — routing 11 submissions per evaluator-hour, with full audit provenance for every decision.
Read case studyComposite deployment example. The business workflow reflects real implementation patterns. Company names, operational data, and reported outcomes have been synthesized for illustration.