Operations & Supply ChainLogistics & Warehousing

AI Prompts for Transportation Planning

Transportation planning sits between the network you have and the service you promise. The decisions repeat at different time scales: which mode and carrier on each lane, how to consolidate shipments, how to tender freight so rates are comparable, and whether the network of origins and destinations should change. Each decision trades cost, transit time, reliability and flexibility.

These prompts cover lane and mode analysis, carrier selection and tendering (including the criteria that go beyond rate), and consolidation or network options. They work from your shipment history and rate data; the model structures the analysis and should flag when a recommendation depends on a rate or transit time you have not provided.

Before you use these

Have these ready to replace the highlighted [variables]:

Shipment history by lane: volume, weight, frequency, mode, carrier, cost, transit time, on-time performance
Current carrier contracts and rate structures
Service requirements by customer or lane
Constraints: hazmat, temperature, equipment, delivery windows

The prompts

1. Analyze lanes and mode options
2. Define carrier selection criteria and run a freight tender
3. Evaluate consolidation and network options

1. Analyze lanes and mode options

Best forSeeing which lanes carry the cost and where a different mode or shipment profile would be cheaper at acceptable service.

Inputs needed

Lane-level shipment data
Rates by mode
Service requirements

How to use itAggregate to lanes first. The model should rank lanes by spend and then examine the mode fit for the top ones.

Expected outputLane ranking, mode-fit assessment per major lane with cost and transit trade-off, and the lanes where consolidation would change the mode.

Act as a transportation analyst reviewing lanes and mode choices for [business].

Shipment data: [origin, destination, shipments, average weight/volume per shipment, mode, carrier, cost, transit time, on-time %]
Rates available: [by mode and lane: parcel, LTL, FTL, intermodal, air, ocean — with break points]
Service requirements: [transit time or delivery window by lane or customer]

1. Aggregate to lanes; rank by annual spend and by cost per unit (weight or cube). Identify the lanes that make up 80% of spend.
2. For each major lane: assess the mode fit — is the average shipment size near a mode break point (e.g. LTL shipments that would be cheaper as FTL if consolidated, parcel that should be LTL)? Show the cost per unit at current profile versus the alternative mode.
3. Service trade-off: transit time and reliability of the alternative versus the requirement. Flag where a cheaper mode breaks a commitment.
4. Identify lanes with high cost variability or poor on-time performance and the likely causes (spot buying, carrier mix, accessorials).
5. Consolidation candidates: lanes where combining shipments across days or customers would cross a mode break point, and the frequency change required.
6. Recommendations by lane with estimated savings and the assumption each depends on.

Present as a lane table and a short narrative. Do not assume rates for modes I have not provided — mark them as needing a quote.

2. Define carrier selection criteria and run a freight tender

Best forSelecting carriers on total performance and getting bids that can be compared like for like.

Inputs needed

Lanes to tender
Requirements
Current performance

How to use itThe model builds the criteria and the bid structure. Weight reliability and capacity, not only rate — the cheapest carrier that fails in peak costs more.

Expected outputSelection criteria with weights and evidence, tender structure and bid sheet, and the evaluation method.

You are preparing a freight tender for [lanes / modes / annual volume].

Requirements: [service levels, equipment, delivery windows, tracking, claims handling, sustainability, insurance]
Current state: [incumbent carriers, rates, performance, contract end dates]
Tender scope: [lanes, volumes, term]

1. Selection criteria and weights: rate and rate structure; on-time performance and reliability; capacity commitment (especially in peak); equipment and coverage; tracking and communication; claims ratio and resolution; financial stability; safety and compliance; sustainability. For each: how it is evidenced (bid, references, data, audit) and the scoring anchors.
2. Bid sheet: lane-by-lane rate request with fixed assumptions (equipment, weight bands, accessorials to include, fuel surcharge basis, transit time commitment, volume commitment from us), so bids are comparable. Include minimum charges and accessorial schedule.
3. Tender process: RFI/RFP stages, timeline, Q&A rules, award logic (single vs multiple carriers per lane, primary/backup), and the volume allocation approach.
4. Evaluation: total landed cost per lane including accessorials and expected fuel, adjusted for reliability (cost of failures) and capacity risk. Show how a carrier with a higher rate but better reliability could win.
5. Implementation: onboarding, rate loading, performance review cadence, and the clause that lets us reallocate volume on poor performance.

Do not award on rate alone. Flag lanes where a single-carrier award creates risk.

3. Evaluate consolidation and network options

Best forComparing structural changes — pooling, cross-docking, stock positioning, delivery scheduling — on cost and service.

Inputs needed

Shipment patterns
Facility and inventory data
Customer delivery constraints

How to use itGive the model the current network and the options you are considering. It will structure the cost/service comparison and the questions a formal network study would need to answer.

Expected outputOption comparison with cost, service, inventory and implementation effects, and the analysis needed to confirm the leading option.

Act as a logistics network planner evaluating consolidation and network options for [business].

Current network: [origins, DCs, destinations, flows and volumes, inventory positions, transit times]
Options under consideration: [e.g. scheduled delivery days per region; pooling or milk runs; cross-dock; regional stock positioning; direct shipping vs DC; 3PL consolidation]
Customer constraints: [delivery windows, minimum service, order patterns]

For each option:
1. Mechanism and which flows it affects.
2. Transportation cost effect (with the driver: fewer shipments, larger shipments, shorter distance, mode change).
3. Inventory effect (more or fewer stocking points, safety stock pooling or fragmentation).
4. Service effect (transit time, frequency, reliability) and which customers gain or lose.
5. Handling and facility cost effect.
6. Implementation: time, cost, dependencies, reversibility.
7. Risks and the assumptions the estimate rests on.

Then:
- Compare options on total logistics cost (transport + inventory + handling) and service, with a range.
- Recommend the leading option and the specific analysis or pilot that would confirm it (e.g. a 90-day scheduled-delivery pilot in one region with defined metrics).
- Note where a formal network optimization study is warranted and what data it needs.

Keep the comparison at the same level of detail across options.

Related prompts

Logical next step

After this, most operations teams move on to Logistics Cost Analysis.

Get the free Operations & Supply Chain AI Starter Kit → Nine of these prompts as a diagnose → analyze → plan workflow with an intake worksheet, delivered by email. See what's inside

All Operations & Supply Chain prompts · Search the full library