)){kind=small}
Your organisation operates on volume and precision. Every day, orders are processed across multiple warehouses. Goods are received, stored, picked, packed and shipped using your own transport or external carriers.
Increasingly, additional services are added, such as installation, returns, or delivery under specific conditions. Your warehouse management system (WMS) and transport management system (TMS) capture all of this flawlessly. You have full visibility into your daily operations. But once these same activities are translated into billing, a different picture emerges.
In practice, this means that not all executed activities are fully or correctly invoiced. A form of revenue leakage: revenue that is generated in operations, but does not fully return in billing.
The challenge is not in operations, but in billing
The complexity lies not only in what you do, but in how you translate it into billing.
Each customer has their own agreements. Storage is billed differently from pick & pack. Value-added services have their own pricing structures. Transport rates vary depending on volume, route, time window or conditions. When external partners are involved, order characteristics must also be translated into compensation for subcontractors.
These agreements are documented in contracts and systems, but are rarely directly connected to the operational floor. In practice, this means billing is created from a combination of:
- WMS and TMS data
- Exports and controls
- Manual processing
Operations accurately capture what happens, but the translation into billing remains fragmented.
Where logistics billing structurally breaks down
The core issue is the missing link between operations and billing.
Activities, especially exceptions and additional services, are not consistently invoiced. Contract agreements are not always applied fully or consistently. Errors arise in self-billing and settlements with partners.
As a result, invoices require corrections and explanations afterwards. Not because operations fail, but because the translation is incomplete.
The impact of revenue leakage on finance
For Finance, this goes beyond inefficiency:
- Revenue is not fully realised
- Margins are difficult to manage
- Billing is time-consuming and dependent on individual expertise
- Disputes with customers or partners increase
And this is reflected in your numbers. Publications in Forbes*, based on insights from EY and MGI Research, show that organisations structurally lose 1 to 5% of their realised EBITDA due to revenue leakage in the order-to-cash process.
From operational problem to structural solution
The lack of translation from operations to billing is not an operational problem, but a structural challenge in how the two are connected. The solution is to implement that connection. Not afterwards, but directly within the process.
Operational events from WMS and TMS are no longer interpreted after the fact, but are validated in real time and linked directly to the correct service and pricing agreement. Every activity and additional service is automatically recognised and translated into a billable item.
Contract agreements, pricing tiers and exceptions form the foundation of the calculation.
Billing as a natural outcome of operations
Billing is no longer a translation, but a logical outcome of what happens operationally. Everything you do becomes traceable and correctly invoiced, without manual intervention.
This is immediately reflected in:
- higher realised revenue (revenue assurance);
- faster and more predictable billing (cash flow);
- reduced dependency on manual processing (efficiency);
- better substantiated invoices and fewer disputes (customer satisfaction);
- improved insight into the relationship between operations and margins (control).
In short
Your operations already know. Now your billing needs to catch up.
* Forbes (2021) https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/08/16/slow-the-drip-of-revenue-leakage-in-recurring-revenue/
