An AI tracking request can become somebody else’s phone call

Carrier Logistics and LSP44 announced a collaboration on 14 October to match shipment properties with carrier records when tracking numbers are missing or wrong, using an AI-powered interface.[1]

Carrier Logistics describes automated calls and emails piling up after tracking requests fail. The sender has automated its follow-up; carrier staff still have to investigate.[1]

Which shipment are we discussing?

XPO’s tracking guide provides a familiar starting point. Its nine-digit PRO number identifies a freight bill and travels with the shipment as a barcode. Entering it retrieves the shipment’s status and details. The immediate task is to connect a request to the correct record.[2]

Other references can already support tracking. project44’s developer guide accepts identifiers including bills of lading, purchase orders and pickup references. The harder case is a request without a usable identifier.[3]

Imagine a fictional supplier that sent two similar consignments to the same depot during one week. A message asking about “the Tuesday delivery” may not distinguish them: Tuesday could mean collection, expected arrival or the day somebody asked for an update. Adding the purchase order could resolve the question. If that is missing too, another detail has to do the distinguishing work.

This is an identity problem before it is a location problem. Finding a real record for the wrong consignment would produce a convincing answer about the wrong goods. A useful match must preserve the connection between the customer’s request and the particular shipment whose status is returned.

Count the work on both sides

Consider an illustrative comparison. A shipper’s assistant sends ten follow-up messages without requiring staff time. If each prompts a carrier employee to investigate, the process has moved work between organisations. An interface that resolves those same requests directly could remove work from the shared process. The difference is invisible if the shipper counts only its own time.

For a practical evaluation, the unit to follow is one resolved shipment enquiry. That includes repeat messages, any human search and correction of an incorrect match. A reduction in outgoing calls is useful only insofar as the requesting customer still receives the right answer. This gives both parties a common outcome to measure.

The announcement gives no measured accuracy or enquiry reduction, so savings remain unquantified.[1]

Better matching could make automation less intrusive because the information would reach the requester without another interruption. That is a commercially useful aim for an agent: finish the enquiry with less work across the relationship, including the work done by someone else.

Report an error or suggest a correction