COO must decide whether to insource last-mile logistics or renew with the current operator who failed 3 times this quarter

The operation already has a dashboard, automatic alerts, and recurring meetings with the logistics operator. The problem is not a lack of signals. It is a lack of a governed decision on what to do with them.

OTIF drops, the alert arrives, the supplier promises an adjustment, and the organization continues operating on reaction. Meanwhile, contract renewal, NPS, transition costs, and operational risk remain dispersed across areas — without a formal comparison of available alternatives.

When change finally happens, it usually happens late: under pressure, with emergency transitions, and at a much higher cost than would be necessary with planning.

Arcogi transforms an operational alert into a comparable decision.

Instead of merely reacting to a falling KPI, the organization begins to formally structure alternatives: maintain and renegotiate, replace, operate under a hybrid model, insource part of the network, or review the logistics design entirely.

These options cease to be opinions expressed in a meeting and begin to be compared by explicit criteria, such as: impact on OTIF, total cost over a multi-month horizon, transition risk, effect on NPS, and real execution capacity.

If the journey is complete, Arcogi continues tracking the decision after the choice is made. This makes it possible to detect early when the operator degrades below the SLA again, when the actual cost strays from what was expected, or when the chosen alternative begins to strain the KPIs between service and margin — and to reopen the cycle before the company pays for reacting late.

The kernel inherently envisions KPI declaration, telemetry, BOT, and automatic re-triggering upon drift or tension between KPIs. What is learned is also not lost in the supplier switch or hidden in meeting minutes. It becomes an operational precedent for the next cycle.