Manufacturers lose millions when ROI models drive tech purchases without strategic alignment or operational readiness.
By Brad Forester, Founder & Managing Partner, JBF Consulting
For manufacturers and logistics leaders, the story is becoming uncomfortably familiar.
A compelling demo. A polished ROI model. Confident assurances that a new production, warehouse, or visibility platform will “pay for itself” within 12 to 18 months. The business case is approved; contracts are signed – and three years later, the organization is left with underutilized technology, frustrated users, and the realization that the expected value never materialized.
In many cases, the cost of that mistake can quietly creep past eight figures.
The problem isn’t that companies are investing in technology. It’s that they are confusing a technology business case with a technology strategy. And the two are not the same.
Vendor ROI models are designed to sell software, not to diagnose organizational readiness or strategic fit. They rely on optimistic assumptions: rapid adoption, clean data, standardized processes, and a level of internal alignment that most manufacturers simply don’t have at the time of purchase.
These models are not inherently dishonest, but they are incomplete. They focus on what the software can do in ideal conditions, not what the business is actually prepared to execute, sustain, and scale.
That gap between promise and performance is well documented. In a late-2025 survey, only about one-third reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their current routing and scheduling technology. Nearly two-thirds described their experience as neutral or dissatisfied despite having justified the investment through formal ROI analysis1.
For executive teams, this creates a dangerous illusion of certainty. The spreadsheet says the investment works. The payback period looks reasonable. The risk appears to be contained.
What’s missing is a clear understanding of whether the technology aligns with the company’s operating model, maturity level, and long-term objectives.
While many technology failures are realized during implementation, the root causes of those failures are often baked in long before the RFP is issued.
This “pre-buying gap” is where organizations skip the hard work of defining what success actually looks like beyond cost savings. They move directly from pain points, saying “we need better visibility” or “we need to automate”, when selecting vendors without first answering foundational questions:
The hesitation many organizations express reflects an implicit recognition of this gap. In the same survey, 60% of respondents said they have no plans to implement new routing and scheduling technology within the next two years. This is not a lack of awareness or innovation appetite; it is a sign that leaders increasingly understand the risks of buying technology before the strategy is clear1.
Without addressing the pre-buying gap, technology becomes a very expensive experiment instead of a strategic enabler.
Functional requirements are often treated as a box-checking exercise. In reality, they should be a forcing mechanism for strategic clarity.
Too often, requirements are copied from legacy systems or shaped by vendor marketing language. This leads to bloated lists that obscure what truly matters.
The survey referenced earlier reinforces how rarely technology limitations are the real constraint. When asked what inhibits implementation, more than half of respondents cited cost as the primary barrier, while over a quarter pointed to lack of internal resources. Factors such as IT constraints and executive alignment also surfaced, while pure functionality gaps ranked far lower1.
In practice, most technology initiatives don’t fail because software can’t deliver. They fail because the organization is not structured, staffed, or aligned to support the change the software demands.
Effective requirements start with outcomes, not features. They distinguish between what is essential to execute the strategy and what is merely nice to have.
Another critical due diligence step often overlooked is objective industry benchmarking.
Without understanding how peers with similar network complexity and operating models perform, it’s nearly impossible to set realistic expectations. A 5% production efficiency gain may sound impressive until you realize the organization is already operating in the top quartile—or dangerously misleading if foundational inefficiencies remain unresolved.
Benchmarking helps leadership distinguish what technology can influence versus what requires structural change. It also helps prioritize investments instead of chasing incremental gains that won’t move the needle.
Perhaps the most expensive mistake companies make is allowing technology selection to drive strategy instead of validating strategy first.
When vendors are asked to define the future state, organizations risk outsourcing critical thinking. The roadmap becomes shaped by product capabilities rather than business priorities.
Executive alignment and business case clarity consistently appear as inhibitors to successful implementation; an indication that many initiatives move forward before leadership agreement and success metrics are fully defined.
By performing strategy work before issuing an RFP, buyers also gain a far more comprehensive understanding of the true work effort involved. This includes the internal resources required, the organizational changes needed, and a realistic timetable for implementation.
That clarity materially improves cost estimation. Instead of relying on high-level vendor assumptions, organizations can more accurately quantify implementation effort, internal labor, change management, and ongoing operating costs. When paired with a clearer articulation of business benefits, this creates a far more precise and defensible estimate of ROI and payback period.
More precise costs plus more realistic benefits produce better buyers; buyers with grounded expectations, stronger governance, and a higher probability of realizing value after go-live.
Strategy validation means pressure-testing assumptions before they are embedded in contracts. It asks whether the organization has executive alignment on trade-offs, the operating model to support new capabilities, and the governance required to measure value realization over time.
If the answer to any of these is unclear, the organization is not at a disadvantage; it’s simply not ready to buy.
Technology can be a powerful accelerant, but only when it is anchored to a clear, validated strategy. The most successful manufacturers invert the traditional buying process. They invest first in understanding themselves before investing in tools.
This approach doesn’t slow decision-making; it improves it. It leads to fewer surprises, stronger vendor partnerships, and measurable value that holds up under scrutiny.
As a result, the most expensive technology mistake isn’t buying the wrong system—it’s buying a system without a strategy.
About the Author:
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. For more information, please visit www.jbf-consulting.com.
1: JBF Consulting 2026 Routing & Scheduling Reality Check Survey
The Rise of American Manufacturing: A New Industrial Era
Scott Ellyson, CEO of East West Manufacturing, brings decades of global manufacturing and supply chain leadership to the conversation. In this episode, he shares practical insights on scaling operations, navigating complexity, and building resilient manufacturing networks in an increasingly connected world.
Get In Touch
Google news and SEO compliant, Industry Today’s state-of-the-art digital media platform offers bespoke media campaigns that target key decision makers and buyers to achieve your marketing and promotional goals.
Contribute
Showcase your brand and promote your business to our highly targeted audience. We offer detailed Google Analytics with measurable ROI to assure success. Submit your content for review by our Editorial team who will contact you to discuss the project further.
About Us
Reach Your Targeted Audience and Grow Your Business. Learn more About Industry Today.
Contact Us
© 2026 Industry today. All Rights reserved.
