Fleet utilisation and cost analytics system
The fleet manager compares the use of transport, energy costs and costs. Waiting and repairs are separated from the time when technicians just weren't working.
Fuel or energy data is not tied to the right asset, measurement limit and real operating mode. Real loss can go unnoticed, and reasonable higher consumption - mistakenly considered a violation.
How the solution works
- The period of wealth and labor is linked to sources of use, energy and cost.
- The quantity, the location of the measurement and the allocation of total costs are individually checked.
- The use is assessed by the work, waiting and technical inaccessibility of a specific asset group.
- Deviation is passed to cause check; only the confirmed result is used for comparison.
- The update or redistributive script shows the assumptions used and their influence on the conclusion.
Key challenges
- Fuel and energy losses are seen too late
- Asset utilisation is reported at too broad a level
- The total cost of using the property is calculated late
Solution capabilities
Energy and Usage Connection
Fuel, charging and actual use data are cross-checked against the same asset and period; different measurement limits are noted.
Analysis of working regimes
The mileage or engine hours are linked to the task performed. Special unit work, such as loading or pumping, is separated from the engine operation without load.
Basis for investigation of deviation
The signal is compared to similar work and available technical data; the missing explanation remains a matter of inquiry.
Total use costs
Energy, repairs and other matched costs are reported on an equal time frame without duplicated financial components.
Fleet investment scenarios
Replacement, transfer or other technology is compared against the same assumptions of work, infrastructure and cost. Unknown future values are presented as scenarios.
Business context
- Fuel and energy losses are seen too late
- Fuel or energy data is not tied to the right asset, measurement limit and real operating mode. Real loss can go unnoticed, and reasonable higher consumption - mistakenly considered a violation.
- Asset utilisation is reported at too broad a level
- Productive work, necessary waiting, transportation and technical inaccessibility are calculated solely on the basis of mileage or total engine hours. The size and redistribution of the fleet is assessed without regard to the actual need for service and the nature of the property's work.
- The total cost of using the property is calculated late
- The income or use result of an asset is compared to the incomplete or differently assigned costs of maintenance, energy and fixed assets. Different units and upgrade options are compared without matching the period, usage and calculation assumptions.
- Service capacity is assessed along with fleet costs
- The company that uses the transport must match customer demand, use of available tools and cost of operation. Separate data for waiting, repair and work help to determine real limitation. This provides a basis for considering fleet composition or service conditions according to operational need.
Core features
- Energy and Usage Connection
- Analysis of working regimes
- Basis for investigation of deviation
- Total use costs
- Fleet investment scenarios
Key integrations
- Fleet and equipment management system
- Asset unit code, assigned employee or object and periods of use.
- Telematics and sources of work tasks
- Actual use of the equipment, aggregate mode and work data.
- Fuel and Charging Data
- Quantity, price, measurement limit and link to a specific unit of property.
- Maintenance system
- The works, downtimes, parts and their actual cost relationship have been completed.
- Accounting system
- Financial documents and the agreed basis for the allocation of the cost of property.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Work on the preparation of property use analysis
12–36%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of manual data entry and handover work can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
The active time of data reconciliation and comparison preparation is measured.
Waiting for studies of incomplete consumption deviations
6–25%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of waiting caused by missing information or unclear responsibility can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 30-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Counting time to a reasonable cause or clearly identified data gaps; the amount of signals is not considered a savings.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- The work of special equipment in motion is attributed to loss-making downtime, although the unit provides a service.
- A comparison of different asset options includes repairs and infrastructure in one place, and energy only elsewhere.
Implementation requirements
For fleet analysis, comparable work results and cost limits are determined. Fuel, charging and usage data are cross-checked by separating the special equipment work in motion, and exchange scenarios are based on reliable accounting of current use.
Further development options
- Monitoring of confirmed causes of energy deviation under different working conditions
- Verification of asset redistribution scenarios according to the need for a service by specific units