A personal review – focus on shippers
My first encounters with a transport management system (TMS) date back more than 20 years, to 2003 to be precise. At that time, I was working as a consultant in the field of SAP Supply Chain Execution, primarily for industrial companies, i.e., shippers. There, I became familiar with all aspects of transport management: from inbound processes, including imports, to outbound scenarios, to complex multi-site networks in which strategic, tactical, and operational transport planning had to be closely interlinked.
My focus on the operational, holistic management of transports was particularly influential. It was not just a matter of planning individual transports or calculating freight costs, but rather of taking an end-to-end view: How do I integrate the warehouse, how do I manage the supply to a plant, how do container cycles work, how do I optimize loading space, how are machines, assemblies, and equipment transported optimally, and how do I keep service levels and costs under control? These questions shaped my everyday work and continue to influence my thinking about TMS to this day.
From today’s perspective, the SAP R/3 functionalities at that time were limited, but they had one decisive advantage: they could be implemented quickly, were highly integrated, were sufficient for many companies, and could also be expanded selectively with a little programming. We were often able to implement functioning solutions within a few weeks, sometimes even days. For many shippers, this was a real competitive advantage because they could bring transparency and standardization to their transports with manageable effort.
The broader context
While I base my experiences on projects with shippers, Graham Parker paints a picture of the global TMS evolution in his article “Why Global Shipping’s Brain Needs a Total Rewrite” (2025). He recalls that TMS emerged in the 1990s as an extension of ERP systems, driven by the explosive growth of global trade. SAP was a pioneer in this field, with Oracle following soon after.
Parker describes the years 2005 to 2015 as a kind of “supercycle” for TMS implementations. Systems were introduced worldwide because global supply chains were becoming increasingly complex, customers were demanding greater transparency and speed, regulatory requirements were increasing, and costs were coming under greater pressure.
While Parker examines this development from a macro perspective, looking at global trade flows, BCO shippers, and international trade lanes, I have witnessed the micro perspective of shippers: the operational reality in industry and trade. This is where companies did not plan their transports theoretically, but had to actually manage them day after day across plants, countries, and modes of transport.
Classic TMS: Useful, but no longer sufficient
From a shipper’s perspective, traditional TMS systems represented a huge step forward at the time. For the first time, it was possible to view and manage transports holistically. However, the limitations soon became apparent:
- Interfaces were cumbersome, real-time information was hardly available.
- Lack of web capabilities and collaboration options (e.g., time slot management or WEB EDI)
- Multi-site planning was only possible with considerable customization.
- Workflows were often too rigid to respond flexibly to changes.
- No strategic components in location planning or freight contracts
- Limitation to transport execution vs. planning (lack of heuristics or optimization solutions)
- Statische Stammdaten (Routen & Entfernungsnetzwerke) anstatt dynamischer Routen etc.
Today, 20 years later, many shippers still use these old systems, often with add-ons! But the world has changed: supply chains are more global, volatile, and complex than ever before. Data-driven decisions and automation are a must, not an option!
Power of transformation
The forces at work today, which I sense in my practice not only among shippers:
- The natural upgrade cycle
Many TMSs introduced during the supercycle phase are now technologically obsolete. Shippers are faced with a decision: continue working with outdated systems or take the plunge into the new.
- The SaaS (R)evolution
Cloud-native systems enable genuine collaboration across locations, regions, and partners for the first time. For shippers, this means a consolidated view of inbound, outbound, and import shipments in real time. However, many systems are rather limited from the shipper’s perspective, as they are specialized, for example, only for trucks, hardly ever for rail, and often there is a misunderstanding between shipping and transport management!
- The API and AI Revolution
API-first approaches and AI agents are radically changing the logic of transport management. Shippers can orchestrate their transports across different plants, carriers, and regions without having to operate a monolithic system. However, companies often still lack the knowledge to develop realistic strategies for the future!
Agentic AI Workflows – the next step
This is precisely where my observations over the past few months come in: for me, agentic AI is the logical next step in development.
- Freight cost verification is handled by AI, which instantly compares invoices, rates, and services.
- Transportation execution is dynamic: agents automatically tender, adjust routes, communicate independently with carriers, and manage exceptions.
- Transportation planning becomes a continuous learning process that adapts to disruptions in real time and optimizes scenarios across multiple locations.
- Communication with logistics partners using dynamic interfaces, LLM that communicate with the driver by voice, and AI-supported mapping and interface monitoring!
This changes the role of the TMS: it is no longer a system that maps workflows, but a platform orchestrated by agents.
My assessment – lessons learned from projects
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from over 20 years of TMS projects with shippers, it’s this: technology alone is not enough.
My answer to the question of whether we still need traditional TMS is as follows:
- Technologically: No! Modular, AI-native services are superior.
- Organizational: Not all companies are ready to hand over operational responsibility to autonomous systems, so the transformation alone will actually take years!
The biggest hurdle lies not in IT, but in organization and culture. Trust in agents, governance, and change management are crucial.
Conclusion: Two perspectives, one goal
My review of the shipper world and Parker’s global analysis lead to the same conclusion: we are at a turning point in transport management.
- Classic TMSs have played their part and have been crucial to the progress made over the last two decades.
- But the future belongs to an orchestrated, modular, and AI-driven world in which agents take over operational control and humans focus on strategy, partnerships, and innovation.
The question is not whether we will take this step. The question is how quickly we are prepared to let go of yesterday’s technology and shape the world of tomorrow.
Sources
- Parker, Graham (2025): Why Global Shipping’s Brain Needs a Total Rewrite, Building the next generation of BCO Shipper Supply Chain Software, 18. August 2025.
- Over 20 years of hands-on experience with SAP Supply Chain Execution at industrial and commercial enterprises (inbound, outbound, import, multi-site, operational control).
- Gartner (2024): Emerging AI Workflows in Enterprise Applications.
