I asked before deciding
Before touching the org chart, I ran a 26-question survey with the eleven people who did the work every day: what blocks them, what trips over what, where communication fails. The first meeting was tense and full of cross-accusations. It was also the most useful one: the map of problems came out of it, not from a consultancy.
I broke big tasks into small ones
A scope that is too wide is not a sign of a versatile team. It’s a sign of poorly defined priorities. I redesigned the roles into smaller blocks: one person solely for scheduling, four for problem-free loads, one analyst dedicated to indicators. Each person ended up with a slice that fit into a workday.
I created a team that only handled what went wrong
Six people left control and formed a cell dedicated exclusively to stalled loads, with no other task competing for attention. And that cell moved physically next to the warehouse: they could now see, through the window, the truck coming back with the load that didn’t get in. Distance between those who decide and those who execute costs money. There, you could see the cost in the indicator.
I took the middleman out of the customer conversation
Before, every failed delivery went through the sales team before reaching the shipper. I cut the middleman: the resolution cell started talking directly to whoever shipped the load. Sales went back to selling, resolution gained speed, and the goods stopped aging in the warehouse waiting for an email to be answered.
I measured every day, not every month
The service-level indicator began to be calculated and read daily by the team and management, instead of being closed at the end of the month, when nothing can be fixed anymore. That is what let us see the curve turn in April, three weeks after applying the project, and not in July.