Logistics Outsourcing: Seven Mistakes That Cost the Most

In this episode of Rozmowy Logistyków, Piotr Skobało and Adam Sobolewski discuss common mistakes in logistics outsourcing. They share behind-the-scenes knowledge from over a dozen outsourcing projects they've run, from both the client and the operator side.

MISTAKE 1: NO CLEARLY DEFINED PURPOSE FOR OUTSOURCING

Companies decide to outsource for various reasons — cost reduction, flexibility during seasonality, entering a new market, focusing on the core business — but often without precisely defining which of these goals is the priority. You look for an operator differently when the goal is cost reduction (this requires close, personalized cooperation, like Fiege's model with Zalando, where the process from picking to shipping is tailored to a specific client) than when the goal is flexibility. The "open book" model (transparent cost structure plus an agreed margin) is one option for companies wanting to build a partnership based on cost clarity, not just unit price.

MISTAKE 2: A POORLY RUN OPERATOR SELECTION PROCESS

Skipping a rigorous risk assessment and verification of whether a given operator can actually deliver the service leads to situations where a warehouse launch drags on for additional months. With limited in-house experience, it's worth bringing in a consulting or legal firm to review contract terms — a cost that pays for itself many times over compared to the consequences of a poorly structured agreement.

MISTAKE 3: ASSUMING OUTSOURCING RELIEVES YOU OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Handing warehouse operations to an operator doesn't mean handing over responsibility for supply chain management — quite the opposite, it requires even more rigorous S&OP (sales and operations planning), because the company no longer has direct visibility into order fulfillment. The operator provides the "hands," but the "head" — decisions about forecasts, priorities, short-term plans — stays with the client.

MISTAKE 4: A CONTRACT WITHOUT A MEASURABLE SLA

Even the most detailed quality annexes (on-time performance, damage rates, daily or weekly volumes) are useless without a credible measurement system. A common scenario: metrics are written into the contract but not measured during the first months of the relationship, and quality conversations stay vague instead of resting on hard data — leading to real business losses. When defining metrics, you also have to establish where the data to calculate them will actually come from.

MISTAKE 5: AN INCOMPLETE COST CALCULATION (TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP)

Negotiations usually focus on rates for specific operations (pallet issue, storage), overlooking the costs of IT system integration, staff training, relationship management, and above all the cost of a potential future move to a different operator. A real example: a switching-cost calculation of 0.4 cents/m² per month turned out to be significant enough relative to rental rates (then around 3 euros/m²) that it tipped the decision against an apparently cheaper offer from another operator. The takeaway: you have to calculate total cost of ownership, not just unit prices.

MISTAKE 6: WEAK OR IMPRECISE DATA HANDED TO THE OPERATOR

A logistics operator's proposal is only as good as the data it's based on — ideally: a full flow history covering at least a year, line by line, plus a future sales forecast with defined bands (e.g. "sales of 100 million, realistically between 115 and 135 million next year") and an agreed review cycle (quarterly or annual). Any uncertainty on the client's side gets translated by the operator into its own risk buffer — meaning a higher price. Nailing down that forecast with the board can be time-consuming (in one case it took 6 months), but it's an investment that directly lowers the cost of the proposal.

MISTAKE 7: LEAVING THE RELATIONSHIP TO ITSELF AFTER SIGNING

A signed contract doesn't guarantee quality is maintained — you need a rhythm of regular reviews: weekly operational meetings, a monthly review of a broader set of metrics, and an annual, in-depth quality audit (infrastructure, procedures, remediation plans — standards close to ISO make a good baseline here, not necessarily a certified one). An additional risk is excessive dependence on a single operator or a single location — it's worth periodically (even just once a year) talking to other potential partners, even with no intention to switch, so you have a real exit plan ready before you need it. An exit plan is at the same time an entry plan into a new relationship — it has to cover not just settling up with the current operator (who hands over the facility, data, goods), but also how to maintain continuity of customer order fulfillment during the transition.