New data shows that even as logistics technology budgets expand, organizations struggle to connect those investments to a structured, forward-looking supply chain strategy. JBF Consulting’s latest survey highlights a widening gap between capital deployed and the strategic clarity required to make those investments pay off.
Confidence Lags Behind the Pace of Investment
JBF Consulting’s new survey points to a core tension: companies are accelerating investment in sophisticated logistics technologies, yet internal confidence in evaluating those tools remains uneven. Nearly 42% of respondents say they are “not very confident” or “not at all confident” in assessing complex solution options without external support. Another third describe themselves as neutral, reflecting uncertainty rather than assurance.
Brad Forester, CEO of JBF Consulting, argues that this disconnect stems from how organizations frame transformation efforts. “Organizations today are investing in powerful technology capabilities,” he notes. “Ensuring those investments are grounded in clear strategic priorities, rigorous business case development that evaluates build, buy, and enhancement alternatives, disciplined evaluation free from vendor bias, and cross-functional alignment can significantly improve long-term outcomes.”
The survey suggests that many teams still anchor decisions to tools rather than objectives: 27% say their organizations often define supply chain issues in terms of systems, and 22% report that teams move toward naming a system solution early in the process. Only 4% strongly agree that their companies draw a clean line between a technology business case and the broader supply chain strategy it is meant to support.
Strategy Reviews Are Irregular and Financial Rigor Remains Limited
How frequently companies revisit their supply chain strategy varies widely. One-quarter conduct annual reviews; 36% revisit strategy every two to three years. But 13% acknowledge they only reassess strategy after major disruptions such as acquisitions or regulatory change, an increasingly risky stance in markets where volatility, new compliance requirements, and labor constraints can alter operational needs far more frequently.
The survey also reveals inconsistencies in how business cases are built. While 39% of companies develop cases internally, 38% say the process often validates a direction already informally agreed upon. Only 13% apply highly structured financial methodologies to evaluate logistics tech investments, signaling significant room for improvement in the analytical discipline behind multimillion-dollar decisions. Recent industry reporting shows similar patterns across transportation, warehousing, and procurement technology, where integration effort, operating cost impact, and scalability often receive less scrutiny than feature sets.
Missteps remain common. Over-investment in capabilities that ultimately go underutilized is cited by 28% of respondents, while 27% highlight integration complexity as a top concern. consistent with patterns seen across warehouse automation and TMS/WMS modernization programs. Concerns about long-term vendor flexibility and the ability to evolve with the business were noted by 23% of respondents, a reflection of tightening expectations around system adaptability and roadmap transparency.
Despite the operational implications of these decisions, strategy and requirements definition are most frequently led by IT teams (27%). Cross-functional ownership follows at 23%, highlighting the continuing need for stronger alignment between business, operations, and technology groups as companies confront increasingly interconnected supply chain environments.
Where Strategy Work Will Quietly Shift Next
One underexamined factor is how the surge in AI-enabled planning, forecasting, and optimization tools is exposing structural gaps in process discipline long before a system goes live. Recent industry reports show that organizations piloting these tools often uncover variation in master data, workflow ownership, and decision rights, issues that strategy documents rarely address with precision. As technology becomes more prescriptive and less configurable, these foundational elements matter even more. The next phase of supply chain strategy may hinge on this operational groundwork: not the ambition of the roadmap, but the clarity and consistency of the processes that technology will be expected to strengthen rather than reinterpret.
