Guest Columns

Perspective:
Industry Logistics

Why your cold chain logistics project is over budget and under-delivering

Brad Forester

Brad Forester is the founder and managing partner of JBF Consulting, a leading logistics strategy advisory and technology integration firm. He brings more than 25 years of leadership experience in transportation strategy, logistics technology and supply chain transformation.

Most cold chain and food logistics technology investments don’t fail at go-live. They fail months earlier, in a planning meeting where a vendor hands over a 14-week implementation timeline, and nobody on the operations or food safety team pushes back on what it will actually take to stand up a compliant, temperature-controlled logistics system. By the time the project is six months in with no end in sight, the damage to perishable inventory, customer delivery commitments and regulatory standing is already done.

This is not an edge case. According to Gartner’s Logistics Functional Transformation Survey, 76% of food and cold chain logistics technology transformations fail to hit their critical success metrics. McKinsey research adds a sobering corollary: Even implementations broadly deemed “successful” still lose approximately 20% of their projected value post-launch. And despite these persistent failure rates, 80% of food and dairy logistics organizations have attempted four or more technology transformations in under five years, chasing cold chain efficiency and traceability ROI (return on investment) that keeps slipping just out of reach.

For a mid-market dairy or specialty cheese producer with significant freight spend, a botched TMS (transportation management system) or cold chain visibility platform implementation typically amounts to a costly mistake in hard remediation costs alone — not counting spoilage losses, food safety compliance exposure, customer service failures from missed temperature-sensitive delivery windows or delayed ROI. For large food and dairy multinationals, that number scales quickly.

So, what keeps going wrong? Increasingly, organizations are recognizing that these failures don’t originate during implementation. They are rooted much earlier, during planning, during design and in how success is defined before a project even begins.

The same four failure patterns appear again and again across food and cold chain logistics technology deployments — and they are preventable, but only if you know to look for them before the project kicks off.

• Reason 1: The expectation versus reality gap

The most common root cause of a troubled implementation isn’t a bad vendor; it’s a misaligned one.

Stakeholders walked into a demo, saw a polished feature list and signed a contract for capabilities they’ll rarely use and complexity they never planned for. Recent industry survey data makes the scale of this concern clear: 27.9% of logistics leaders cite fear of overpaying for capabilities they rarely use, while 26.5% flag underestimating integration complexity as a primary risk. These aren’t abstract fears. They are the direct downstream consequences of a vendor selection process that prioritized feature breadth over operational fit.

When the technology hits the reality of day-to-day operations, the gap between what the vendor demonstrated in a generic food industry use case — and what the system can actually deliver against the specific traceability, temperature and compliance requirements of a cheese or dairy operation — becomes the defining story of the engagement.

• Reason 2: Planning failure — the 14-week illusion

Vendors are ultimately incentivized to win contracts, which can create a natural bias toward optimistic timelines and simplified scoping assumptions. The result is a persistent and costly illusion: a project scoped at 14 weeks that is actually a 14-month effort — one that may span seasonal production cycles for aged or specialty cheeses — presented with confidence and accepted without scrutiny. Industry experience suggests roughly eight out of 10 cold chain and food logistics technology implementations are significantly underestimated in both cost and effort because vendors are structurally incentivized to minimize numbers that could threaten the deal.

This failure is compounded by a chronic lack of business case rigor. The industry research found that only 13.1% of food and cold chain logistics technology business cases are built using rigorous methodology. The rest are back-of-envelope calculations that rarely account for the full cost of cold chain failures — including spoilage, recalls or compliance penalties — and they collapse under the weight of a real implementation.

• Reason 3: The design communication gap

Even when technology is the right fit and the plan is reasonably constructed, projects stall in the design phase because clients cannot effectively translate their individual business requirements into vendor-ready specifications. The vendor doesn’t understand what the business actually needs. The business can’t articulate it in terms the vendor can act on.

Recent survey data reinforces how widespread this disconnect is. Only 8.2% of organizations report delivering training tailored to specific workflows and roles — cold chain planners, food safety compliance managers, lot tracking coordinators and transportation teams — while over 40% say their systems were designed with role-based intent but ultimately delivered in a generic, non-food-industry-specific way. This gap between intended design and practical usability is a direct reflection of breakdowns in how requirements are communicated and translated.

The result is what practitioners describe as a cycle of repeated requirement rework: The same needs are revisited again and again without resolution, stretching timelines to multiples of their original estimate while time and budget are consumed with little measurable progress.

The system was installed, but the food safety operation it was supposed to enable was never ready.

• Reason 4: lack of cross-functional orchestration

A typical cold chain TMS or logistics visibility platform deployment touches temperature-controlled warehouse operations, refrigerated transportation, lot and date code tracking, food safety compliance, customer service and IT, while simultaneously coordinating the software vendor, cold storage 3PLs, refrigerated carriers, ERP (enterprise resource planning) and food safety system integrators, and multiple customer EDI (electronic data interchange) environments. Without a dedicated orchestrator holding all of these parties to a shared objective, the project fractures along functional lines.

Survey data highlights just how often this orchestration layer is missing or ineffective. Only 10% of organizations report having a single lead with clear authority driving the implementation, while nearly 49% say leadership was assigned but authority was fragmented. An additional 25% relied on vendors or systems integrators as de facto leads. In other words, the vast majority of projects operate without a truly empowered central orchestrator.

• What a better plan looks like

These four failure patterns share a common thread: They are all front-loaded problems that surface in the back half of the project. The structural decisions that caused them were made months earlier during planning, design or during the framing of the business case.

Organizations that avoid these pitfalls invest upstream. That means building business cases with financial rigor before selecting technology. It means pressure-testing vendor timelines against the real complexity of a cold chain environment. It means establishing a pre-implementation readiness phase, aligning vendors, IT and business stakeholders to shared program objectives before a single line of code is written.

It also means recognizing that systems integration and business integration are not the same thing. Getting the software installed and operating in a way that genuinely supports food safety compliance and cold chain integrity is the floor, not the ceiling. The organizations that realize sustained ROI are the ones that operationalize the system, ensuring logistics planners, food safety teams and transportation coordinators know how to use it, that standard operating procedures, lot tracking protocols, temperature compliance key performance indicators and customer delivery metrics are all built around it, and that knowledge transfer at go-live is treated as a deliverable, not an afterthought.

The potential for a multi-million-dollar mistake is almost always made before anyone realizes it’s happening. The good news is that none of this is inevitable, but closing the gap requires investment in the planning and governance infrastructure that most implementations skip entirely.

CMN

The views expressed by CMN’s guest columnists are their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of Cheese Market News®.

© 2026 Cheese Market News • Quarne Publishing, LLC • Legal Information • Online Privacy Policy • Terms and Conditions
Cheese Market News • Business/Advertising Office: P.O. Box 24 • Sun Prairie, WI 53590 • 608/831-6002
Cheese Market News • Editorial Office: 5315 Wall Street, Suite 100 • Madison, WI 53718 • 608/288-9090