Linear Vs Exponential – How to make a connected system pay for itself

Connected Cameras for Aggregates & Concrete Vehicles
15th November 2021
Would your company benefit from FORS Accreditation?
19th November 2021

Linear Vs Exponential – How to make a connected system pay for itself

It’s Webfleet Wednesday!

Welcome to Part 2 of Linear Vs Exponential where we explore how to make a connected system pay for itself.



Following on from last weeks blog of Linear Vs Exponential we now look at Stakeholder Responsibilities and Return on Investment relating to exponential growth.


Stakeholder Responsibilities

Within each organisation there are often several people who could be regarded as stakeholders.

  • Dispatcher/Transport Manager – Often looking at the day to day functions of vehicle locations, routing, efficiencies as well as some measure of compliance.
  • Driver – Has more specific responsibilities of being at a location for a specific time regardless of what sector they operate. Technology can play a part in a drivers life through walkround checks, navigation, job management, avoiding traffic and sometimes tachograph management.
  • Managers/Directors – Tend to have a “top down” view of compliance, health & safety, insurance and ultimately profitability.

Do you see the Stakeholders from your organisation within the chart below?

Dispatcher Driver Manager Other stakeholders
Routing planning & Scheduling system Navigation Working time reporting Billing & invoicing system
Vehicle tracking Walk around check/ Defect reporting Tachograph Download Workshop maintenance
Driver engagement Job & Traffic management Tachograph Analysis & Infringement reporting Insurance
Planning/ Tachograph compliance & management Tachograph Management/ break reporting Driver infringement debrief compliance  Health & Safety
Customer engagement & ETA reporting Tyre Management Vehicle Maintenance & compliance  Human Resources
Fuel/ Adblue Management Fuel management Collision investigation
Customer Service/ ETA reporting Driver behaviour Driver Training
Vehicle Security Productivity & Profitability
Health & Safety


Return on Investment (dependent on fleet size, fleet type) from potential exponential growth

Area Value
Fuel consumption decrease £15,000
Labour reduction due to automation £20,000
Extra job per vehicle per day (Assumption of £300 sales value per job with £150 margin) £75,000
Insurance £10,000

As you can see from the Return on Investment section this is how you make a connected system pay for itself. A few assumptions from the table above, as all fleet are different shapes and sizes, to help explain might be:


Fuel Consumption

By improving driving behaviour this will have a significant impact on fuel consumption. This can be achieved through:

  • Using technology to schedule better.
  • Having visibility of ETA’s meaning less calls to drivers so lower stress levels for the drivers.
  • A meaningful discussion around telematics reporting on fuel consumption and the impact each behaviour has on the MPG figures.

Labour Reduction due to Automation

An automated job scheduling solution can provide the following:

  • Less labour required in the Traffic office (particularly useful through a driver shortage).
  • Less mileage for the vehicles as the jobs are assigned to remote vehicles meaning the job doesn’t have to start from the company premises each morning.
  • Better customer service as you have instant updated of jobs started, in progress and completed.

Extra Job per day

Here are some examples of how that might be beneficial:

  • Aggregates – Research has shown that by delivering one extra load per day there is an additional sales value of circa £300 per day with a profit margin of £150 per day. If every vehicle could deliver this then your tech has a teal return on investment.
  • Service – In a similar fashion if you used scheduling, job dispatch and, possibly optimisation, you can enable your vehicles to achieve an additional job per day.


As you can see below the difference in insurance fleet costs can be quite significant. Use your technology to help you keep this cost as low as possible:

  • A well run fleet of vans would have an industry average insurance cost of £600 per annum whereas a poorly run fleet would be £850 per annum.
  • A well run fleet of HGV’s would have an industry  average insurance cost of £2,000 per annum whereas a poorly run fleet would be £3,000 per annum.

There are just a few ways that you can stay ahead of the field by maximising a return on investment. Your competitions will be looking to automate so how can you keep up or stay ahead of the competition? Things that were previously only available to largest of fleets is now available to the smallest of fleets because of accelerating technology.


Click 👇🏼 to book a call to discuss how we could help you.