The new goal for logistics teams is adaptability, not stability
The logistics industry has spent decades optimising for stability: stable carrier rates locked in annual contracts, stable supplier relationships managed by procurement teams in isolation, stable processes designed to run the same way every quarter. The problem is that nothing about the current environment rewards stability.
In a recent episode of Logistics Unlocked, Patrick van Denzel — CRO Shippers at Alpega, with deep experience in transport strategy and shipper-side procurement — made the case plainly: "Stability is something that we strive for, but adaptability is what's needed to actually get your supply chain going."
This statement has significant implications for how shippers approach procurement, technology, and network design.
Procurement is no longer a contract-locking exercise
The traditional procurement model had a clear endpoint. You first negotiated the rate, locked the contract, handed it off to operations, and then moved on. The disconnect between what was agreed in procurement and what happened in execution was tolerated and largely invisible to the people who had written the contracts.
That model is breaking down. As Patrick puts it:
"It's no longer really a procurement task to get that contract locked in. You would negotiate a rate, lock the contract, and you would move on — but there was still a disconnect. People need to be all inclusive now, with different departments, including operations."
The organisations closing this gap are the ones building procurement processes that include operations from the start. This gives joint visibility into carrier performance, shared accountability for execution quality, and contract structures that reflect how freight actually moves rather than how planners assume it will.
Data and AI can help you plan for disruption, but not eliminate it
More data is available to logistics teams than at any point in the industry's history. Visibility platforms, TMS analytics, carrier performance dashboards, predictive ETAs — more and more tools give companies all the data they could want. The question is what they actually do with it when it matters.
The honest answer is that data does not always match reality. Disruption still happens, and no AI model can prevent it. What AI can do is buy time to prepare a response before disruption becomes a crisis. But that only works if the data feeding those models is connected across systems. A predictive tool drawing on siloed, incomplete information will flag the wrong risks or miss them entirely. The quality of the warning depends entirely on the quality of the network behind it.
Regulation and nearshoring are both trade-off decisions, not solutions
Two more forces are reshaping shipper networks simultaneously, and neither offers a clean answer.
On one side, compliance is becoming a cost for many companies. The move toward eCMR — the electronic consignment note that has been long in development and is now gaining real traction — illustrates the dynamic. There is a clear advantage because we’re really going towards a paperless future, but it also brings additional costs where shippers need to buy new solutions to obtain compliance. The importance of compliance is that organisations shouldn’t treat it just as a checkbox or an extra cost. They need to see it as an advantage if they move early enough.
The second force reshaping networks is the growing trend for nearshoring. Amid geopolitical conflicts, new tariffs, and persistent volatility, more companies are bringing production and sourcing closer to their customers to reduce risk. Less distance means fewer single points of failure and shorter reaction times when something goes wrong. But it adds complexity that procurement teams often underestimate: more lanes to manage, more carrier contracts, more operational touchpoints across more geographies. There is a trade-off to be found between what is worth the investment and what is worth the risk — and there is no universal answer. There is only the answer that fits the specific supply chain, the specific risk profile, and the specific moment in the cycle.
The question behind the question
What connects procurement integration, data realism, regulatory navigation, and nearshoring complexity is a single underlying shift: the organisations performing well have stopped trying to engineer away uncertainty and started building the capability to absorb it.
That requires different things from procurement teams: broader involvement, longer-horizon thinking, tighter integration with operations... It requires different things from technology, not only dashboards that show what happened, but also tools that help teams act on what is about to happen. And it requires a different definition of what a good network design looks like.
Stability is a reasonable aspiration. Adaptability is the capability that actually determines outcomes.
This post draws on insights shared by Patrick van Denzel in the Logistics Unlocked podcast by Alpega. Listen to the full episode here.