- Who is this for?
- Operations directors, business owners, order management leads and management control teams
- Question addressed
- Quantify the current cost of rekeying transport orders before considering a solution.
Key takeaways
- Time the complete handling process, not just the typing performed in the TMS.
- Use a representative sample across channels, customers, order types and levels of complexity.
- Calculate cost per file, monthly cost and the share caused by rework separately.
- Report potentially releasable capacity without presenting it as a cash saving.
- Retain assumptions, exclusions and the spread of recorded times so the calculation can be checked.
Count every step required for reliable order entry
The cost of entering a transport order is rarely limited to the time spent filling fields in the transport management system (TMS). Before entry, an operator may need to find the right attachment, match an email to a customer reference, open a portal or look up an address. Typing is followed by a review of dates and quantities and, in some cases, a request for clarification or a correction.
A sound measurement starts when the request is picked up and stops when the order has been created or updated, checked and made ready for the next step. Waiting time during which the operator handles another file is not active processing time. Preparing a follow-up, reopening the file and checking it again are active work and should be included.
| Stage | Start timing when | Stop timing when | Include |
|---|---|---|---|
| Find and assemble | The request is opened | The useful sources are identified | Email, attachment, portal, reference data and document version |
| Qualify | The sources are read | The request type and state are established | New order, change, possible duplicate and missing information |
| Enter | The first field is handled | The last field or import is validated | Typing, copy and paste, navigation and list selection |
| Check | Review begins | The result has been compared with the sources | References, addresses, dates, quantities, constraints and final status |
| Follow up and resume | A clarification request is prepared | The file is completed and checked again | Finding the contact, writing the message, reopening, correction and verification |
Build a time-study grid you can actually use
A single average can hide a mixture of straightforward orders and unusually costly cases. The grid should therefore retain total active time and a small set of characteristics that explain the effort. There is no need to collect dozens of fields: keep the ones that help segment the work and support a decision.
- an anonymised identifier, the date and the team or role observed;
- the inbound channel and format: email, portal, EDI, PDF, spreadsheet or another authorised source;
- the operation type: creation, change or rework;
- active minutes by stage and the number of times the file was reopened;
- whether the request was complete and the reason for any follow-up;
- the outcome: entered without rework, corrected before validation, corrected after validation or handed off for a decision.
- 01Define the scope
Choose the teams, channels, customers and order types included, and write down the exclusions.
- 02Sample real situations
Observe several days and time periods so the study does not cover only a quiet window or an easy flow.
- 03Time active work
Pause timing while no work is being performed, then record a new rework line when the file returns.
- 04Review the records
Check that the same conventions were used and investigate extreme values instead of removing them automatically.
- 05Segment before averaging
Calculate times by file family, then weight them using the volumes actually observed.
Calculate cost per file and per month
The base formula is straightforward: cost per file = average active minutes ÷ 60 × fully loaded hourly cost. Monthly cost is that amount multiplied by the number of in-scope files handled during the month. The hourly figure should come from your management control team or internal costing method; it is not an industry benchmark.
Fictional example: an operations team observes 35 orders per day over 20 working days. Its grid records 1.4 minutes for finding information, 3.8 minutes for entry, 1.6 minutes for checks, 0.9 minutes for follow-up and resumed work averaged across all files, and 0.7 minutes for corrections. For the exercise, the company uses a fictional fully loaded hourly cost of €32. These values exist only to demonstrate the calculation.
| Fictional example calculation | Formula | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Average active time per file | 1.4 + 3.8 + 1.6 + 0.9 + 0.7 | 8.4 minutes |
| Cost per file | 8.4 ÷ 60 × €32 | €4.48 |
| Monthly files | 35 × 20 | 700 files |
| Monthly active time | 700 × 8.4 ÷ 60 | 98 hours |
| Measured monthly cost | 98 × €32 | €3,136 |
Separate observed cost, releasable capacity and cash savings
Observed cost answers a descriptive question: how much time and resource does the work currently consume? Releasable capacity answers a different question: which portion could be avoided, moved to review or absorbed in another way? A cash saving requires an organisational decision that actually changes expenditure.
Removing an hour from one task may let the team handle more files, reduce a backlog or spend more time on exceptions. That hour has value, but it does not automatically reduce payroll. Conversely, avoided overtime, a reduced external service or a hire that is no longer required may affect cash expenditure, provided the effect is evidenced and not counted twice.
| Indicator | What it measures | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| Current rekeying cost | Observed active time × internal hourly cost | That automation will cover every file |
| Potentially releasable capacity | Time from stages that can genuinely be avoided in the selected scope | An immediate reduction in expenditure |
| Cash saving | Expenditure actually removed or avoided | The value of all reassigned time |
| Improved quality or lead time | Measured effect on rework, delays or the queue | A financial amount without an approved valuation rule |
Use the measurement to choose where to act
The monthly total helps size the issue, but the breakdown shows where action is useful. Long search times may reveal scattered sources; long entry times may point to difficult inbound formats; repeated rework may expose incomplete orders or unclear checking rules. The right response is not always to remove typing. It may begin with standardising information, clarifying ownership or assembling the file more effectively.
If automated entry is considered, retain the original grid. It provides a baseline for a like-for-like comparison that also counts human checks, exceptions and remaining rework. The guide to transport order entry describes the workflow from email to TMS, while the pilot measurement protocol helps assess reliability without confusing speed with a correct outcome.
- 01Prioritise
Rank file families by volume, active time, rework frequency and criticality.
- 02Choose a testable scope
Select a sufficiently consistent flow so the comparison does not hide its exceptions.
- 03Preserve the baseline
Freeze the period, measurement conventions and starting formulas.
- 04Measure remaining work
After any change, include supervision, checks, excluded cases and corrections.
Frequently asked questions
Direct answers
How many files should be timed?
There is no universal sample size. The sample should cover the main channels, customers, complexity levels, teams and workload periods. Continue until new observations no longer change the results materially or reveal missing file families.
Should time spent waiting for a customer reply be included?
Not as active time if the operator works on something else while waiting. Do include the time required to prepare the follow-up, reopen the file, incorporate the answer and repeat the checks. Calendar lead time can be tracked separately.
Does the calculated cost equal the savings from automated order entry?
No. It describes the current cost of the observed scope. Estimating savings requires evidence of actual coverage, remaining review work, exceptions, project costs and how the released capacity will really be used.
Sources and methodology
This resource describes Axonovia's product approach based on transport workflows. The examples are illustrative and do not constitute a performance commitment or a universally applicable contractual rule.
Product review: Axonovia team · next review recommended before 31 August 2027 or following a material change in scope.