{"id":62,"date":"2026-07-17T05:50:15","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T04:50:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/2026\/07\/17\/evaluating-a-transport-optimisation-consultant-buyers-guide\/"},"modified":"2026-07-17T05:50:15","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T04:50:15","slug":"evaluating-a-transport-optimisation-consultant-buyers-guide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/2026\/07\/17\/evaluating-a-transport-optimisation-consultant-buyers-guide\/","title":{"rendered":"Evaluating a Transport Optimisation Consultant: Buyer&#8217;s Guide"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Most fleet management executives who hire a transport optimisation consultant walk away with a polished report and a bill, but no measurable cost reduction. The problem is not that consultants are incompetent. The problem is that buyers do not know what to demand before they sign. A rigorous <strong>transport optimisation consultant evaluation<\/strong> process can be the difference between uncovering \u00a3100,000 or more in annual savings and paying a five-figure fee for conclusions you already suspected. This checklist gives you the specific questions, red flags, and benchmarks you need to buy well.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"table-of-contents\">Table of Contents<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#why-most-evaluations-fail-before-the-engagement-starts\">Why Most Evaluations Fail Before the Engagement Starts<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#quick-takeaways\">Quick Takeaways<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#what-a-real-methodology-looks-like-versus-what-gets-sold\">What a Real Methodology Looks Like Versus What Gets Sold<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#live-data-versus-historical-analysis-why-it-matters-for-your-fleet\">Live Data Versus Historical Analysis: Why It Matters for Your Fleet<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#fee-structure-and-risk-alignment-who-bears-the-risk\">Fee Structure and Risk Alignment: Who Bears the Risk<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#comparing-consultant-approaches-a-structured-overview\">Comparing Consultant Approaches: A Structured Overview<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#red-flags-in-proposals-that-signal-a-reporting-firm-not-an-optimisation-firm\">Red Flags in Proposals That Signal a Reporting Firm, Not an Optimisation Firm<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#how-to-validate-claimed-savings-before-you-commit\">How to Validate Claimed Savings Before You Commit<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#internal-readiness-questions-you-must-answer-first\">Internal Readiness Questions You Must Answer First<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#frequently-asked-questions\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#references\">References<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"why-most-evaluations-fail-before-the-engagement-starts\">Why Most Evaluations Fail Before the Engagement Starts<\/h2>\n<p>The typical evaluation process for logistics consulting UK or fleet management consulting goes like this: a procurement team collects three proposals, scores them on presentation quality, and selects the cheapest or most familiar name. That process optimises for comfort, not outcome.<\/p>\n<p>Transport operations are complex enough that the right consultant is rarely the one with the slickest deck. The right consultant is the one who can identify where your specific planning logic, fleet allocation rules, or route assumptions are leaking money, and who can prove it before you pay a penny in full fees.<\/p>\n<p>The data consistently shows that most logistics cost leaks are structural, not operational. They are embedded in the rules your team follows every day, not in the execution of those rules. A consultant who cannot distinguish between those two problems will not solve the right one.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"quick-takeaways\">Quick Takeaways<\/h2>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Key Insight<\/th>\n<th>Explanation<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Demand live data deployment, not just report review<\/td>\n<td>Consultants who only analyse historical reports cannot see dynamic cost leaks in your actual fleet behaviour. Hardware or direct system access during live operations is a meaningful differentiator.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Require a savings guarantee or risk-share structure<\/td>\n<td>Any consultant confident in their methodology will tie fees to verified outcomes. Flat-fee-regardless-of-results arrangements protect only the consultant.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Separate reporting firms from decision-support firms<\/td>\n<td>Reporting firms tell you what happened. Decision-support firms identify which planning rules caused it and what to change. Only the latter produces lasting savings.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Ask for a specific minimum savings threshold before engagement<\/td>\n<td>A credible transport optimisation consultant should be willing to state a minimum realistic saving, for example \u00a3100,000 annually, before engagement begins. Vague projections are a warning sign.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Check whether system replacement is required<\/td>\n<td>Consultants whose recommendations require you to replace your TMS or fleet software have a conflict of interest. Genuine optimisation works within your existing infrastructure.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Evaluate the diagnostic period length and depth<\/td>\n<td>Five days of live hardware deployment inside your transport system produces more actionable data than six weeks of interviews and spreadsheet review. Ask exactly how insight is gathered.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Validate named case studies in your specific sector<\/td>\n<td>Generic logistics case studies from retail do not transfer directly to, for example, FMCG distribution or construction materials haulage. Demand sector-relevant, verifiable examples.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"what-a-real-methodology-looks-like-versus-what-gets-sold\">What a Real Methodology Looks Like Versus What Gets Sold<\/h2>\n<p>Before you evaluate any <strong>fleet management consulting<\/strong> firm, you need to understand what a genuine optimisation methodology produces versus what a traditional consultancy delivers by default.<\/p>\n<p>Traditional consultancies conduct stakeholder interviews, review historical data, and produce recommendations. This process has a built-in flaw: it only surfaces the problems your team can articulate. The most expensive cost leaks in transport operations are typically invisible to your planners because they are baked into the assumptions those planners operate under. You cannot interview your way to discovering a planning rule that has been costing you \u00a33,000 per week for four years.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"the-role-of-live-system-access-in-finding-hidden-costs\">The Role of Live System Access in Finding Hidden Costs<\/h3>\n<p>A methodology that deploys proprietary hardware directly into your live transport system for a defined period, for example five working days, captures what actually happens rather than what people remember or report. It records decision patterns, fleet movement logic, load utilisation in real time, and route execution versus route planning.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, this approach consistently surfaces three categories of saving that interview-based consulting misses: sub-optimal fleet allocation driven by planner habit rather than demand, route assumptions that were correct three years ago but are now generating avoidable mileage, and load utilisation gaps that appear only when multiple routes are analysed together rather than in isolation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Pro tip:<\/strong> Ask every consultant you evaluate to describe in specific terms how they capture data. If the answer involves primarily interviews and spreadsheet exports, expect the output to confirm what you already know rather than reveal what you do not.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/pub-13f5efb31d074ec19cf73bafdfcca6b4.r2.dev\/assets\/1784263683289-f62890a6.png\" alt=\"Fleet executive analyzing transport optimization data on computer screens\"><\/figure>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/pub-13f5efb31d074ec19cf73bafdfcca6b4.r2.dev\/assets\/1784263754456-115088fd.png\" alt=\"Transport consultancy evaluation documents and checklist on conference table\"><\/figure>\n<h3 id=\"optimisation-versus-analysis-a-critical-distinction\">Optimisation Versus Analysis: A Critical Distinction<\/h3>\n<p>Analysis answers the question: what is happening? Optimisation answers: which decision rules are causing it, and what specific changes will produce a quantified saving? Firms that sell analysis as optimisation are not lying exactly, but they are not solving your problem. The output you need is a set of actionable changes to planning logic, not a dashboard of historical performance metrics.<\/p>\n<p>When reviewing proposals, look for language that specifies decision-making problems rather than reporting deficiencies. A consultant who says &#8220;we will identify where your fleet allocation logic diverges from demand patterns&#8221; is solving a different problem than one who says &#8220;we will provide a full operational cost report.&#8221;<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"live-data-versus-historical-analysis-why-it-matters-for-your-fleet\">Live Data Versus Historical Analysis: Why It Matters for Your Fleet<\/h2>\n<p>Fleet operations are dynamic. Your planning team makes dozens of micro-decisions every day, and those decisions are influenced by factors that never appear in a historical export: driver availability assumptions, informal capacity buffers, unwritten rules about certain customers or lanes, and habitual routing that persists long after the original justification disappeared.<\/p>\n<p>Historical data analysis can tell you your average cost per kilometre. It cannot tell you that your planners are routinely dispatching three vehicles on a corridor that could be served by two, because they learned to do that two years ago during a temporary peak and never stopped. Only live system observation surfaces that pattern.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&#8220;The difference between a transport consultant who reads your last twelve months of data and one who sits inside your live operation for five days is roughly the difference between a GP reading your medical history and a cardiologist running a stress test.&#8221; <strong>Flow Dynamics operational assessment framework<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>For operations directors evaluating <strong>logistics consulting UK<\/strong> firms, the diagnostic method is arguably more important than the consultant&#8217;s sector experience. A consultant with deep FMCG experience who only works from historical reports will still miss the live behavioural patterns that are costing you money.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Pro tip:<\/strong> When a consultant presents their diagnostic approach, ask specifically: &#8220;Will you be observing our live operation or working from data exports?&#8221; The answer to that question tells you more about the likely quality of the output than any number of case study slides.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"fee-structure-and-risk-alignment-who-bears-the-risk\">Fee Structure and Risk Alignment: Who Bears the Risk<\/h2>\n<p>Fee structure is one of the most reliable signals of a consultant&#8217;s confidence in their own methodology. A firm that charges a flat project fee regardless of outcomes is protecting its revenue, not aligning its interests with yours. A firm that offers a no-saving, no-fee structure is making a different statement entirely: we are confident enough in our process to accept the financial risk of being wrong.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"what-a-credible-no-fee-guarantee-actually-means\">What a Credible No-Fee Guarantee Actually Means<\/h3>\n<p>A genuine savings guarantee is not marketing language. It is a structural commitment that forces the consultant to deploy only their best methodology, because underperformance costs them the engagement fee. When Flow Dynamics, for example, commits to identifying at least \u00a3100,000 in annual savings or the client pays no fee, that is not a bold claim. It is a commercial structure that only makes sense if the methodology is consistently reliable.<\/p>\n<p>Compare that to consultancies that quote a fixed fee and then caveat their savings projections with phrases like &#8220;subject to successful implementation&#8221; or &#8220;dependent on operational adoption.&#8221; Those caveats shift the risk entirely onto you. If the savings do not materialise, your implementation was the problem, not their analysis.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"retainer-versus-project-fees-in-fleet-consulting\">Retainer Versus Project Fees in Fleet Consulting<\/h3>\n<p>Some fleet management consulting firms propose long-term retainer relationships. Retainers are appropriate when a business needs ongoing strategic support, but they are not appropriate as the primary vehicle for a cost-saving engagement. A well-structured optimisation engagement has a defined diagnostic period, a defined set of findings, and a defined output. If a consultant cannot scope their work to a fixed project, they may be designing for relationship extension rather than problem resolution.<\/p>\n<p>Ask for a clear project scope with defined deliverables and a timeline. If the response is that transport optimisation is &#8220;too complex to scope in advance,&#8221; that is either a skills problem or a commercial model problem. Either way, it is a reason to look elsewhere.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"comparing-consultant-approaches-a-structured-overview\">Comparing Consultant Approaches: A Structured Overview<\/h2>\n<p>Understanding the differences between the three dominant approaches to transport and fleet optimisation consulting helps you evaluate what you are actually buying when you receive a proposal.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Approach Type<\/th>\n<th>Primary Method<\/th>\n<th>Typical Output and Limitations<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Software-Led Optimisation (e.g., route optimisation platform vendors)<\/td>\n<td>Route algorithm analysis, TMS data review, software implementation recommendations<\/td>\n<td>Produces route efficiency improvements but often requires system replacement or upgrade. Does not address planning logic or decision-making behaviour. Savings are real but partial.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Traditional Management Consulting (e.g., generalist supply chain consultancies)<\/td>\n<td>Stakeholder interviews, process mapping, benchmarking against industry averages<\/td>\n<td>Strong on process documentation and benchmarking. Weak on uncovering live operational cost leaks. Outputs tend toward recommendations that confirm existing strategic direction rather than challenge operational assumptions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Live Operational Diagnostics (e.g., Flow Dynamics model)<\/td>\n<td>Proprietary hardware deployed in live transport systems for a defined diagnostic window<\/td>\n<td>Identifies specific decision-making problems in fleet allocation, routing assumptions, and load utilisation that are invisible to historical analysis. Risk-share fee structure. No system replacement required. Findings are verified against live data before any fee is paid.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"red-flags-in-proposals-that-signal-a-reporting-firm-not-an-optimisation-firm\">Red Flags in Proposals That Signal a Reporting Firm, Not an Optimisation Firm<\/h2>\n<p>After reviewing dozens of fleet consulting proposals, certain patterns consistently indicate that a firm will deliver analysis rather than actionable cost reduction. These are not subtle signs. They appear in the language of the proposal itself.<\/p>\n<figure><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/pub-13f5efb31d074ec19cf73bafdfcca6b4.r2.dev\/assets\/1784263812565-7d1f1793.png\" alt=\"Commercial fleet logistics vehicles with digital optimization overlay\"><\/figure>\n<h3 id=\"language-that-describes-outputs-rather-than-decisions\">Language That Describes Outputs Rather Than Decisions<\/h3>\n<p>Proposals that lead with deliverables like &#8220;comprehensive operational cost report,&#8221; &#8220;fleet utilisation dashboard,&#8221; or &#8220;benchmarking analysis&#8221; are describing reporting products. None of those outputs directly identifies which specific planning decisions to change. If you want to know whether your route assumptions are costing you money, a dashboard showing average utilisation does not answer that question.<\/p>\n<p>Look instead for language that explicitly references decision logic, planning rules, or allocation behaviour. Phrases like &#8220;identify specific deviations between planned and executed routing decisions&#8221; or &#8220;map fleet allocation logic against actual demand patterns&#8221; indicate a consultant who understands that the cost problem lives in the decision layer, not the reporting layer.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"proposals-that-begin-with-system-recommendations\">Proposals That Begin With System Recommendations<\/h3>\n<p>A common mistake among buyers is accepting a proposal that opens with a technology audit and ends with a recommendation to upgrade or replace software. This is a structural conflict of interest when the consulting firm also has a software product or a referral relationship with a TMS vendor. Genuine optimisation does not require new software. It requires identifying where your existing planning rules are misaligned with your actual operating conditions.<\/p>\n<p>If a consultant cannot tell you what savings are achievable within your current system infrastructure, they are not optimising your operation. They are selling a migration project dressed as a cost-saving engagement.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"how-to-validate-claimed-savings-before-you-commit\">How to Validate Claimed Savings Before You Commit<\/h2>\n<p>Every transport optimisation consultant will claim they deliver significant savings. The question is how to distinguish validated savings from projection-based marketing. There are three specific tests you should apply to every proposal.<\/p>\n<p>First, ask for the specific calculation methodology behind any savings projection. A credible consultant should be able to show you exactly how they arrived at a figure: which cost categories are included, what assumptions are made about fleet size and utilisation, and what the minimum threshold looks like in your specific operational context. A response that references &#8220;industry benchmarks&#8221; without connecting those benchmarks to your actual data is not a validated projection. It is a guess.<\/p>\n<p>Second, ask for case studies in which the savings figure was independently verified post-engagement. This is different from asking for testimonials. You want to know whether the projected savings were confirmed by actual operational data after implementation, not whether a client was happy with the process.<\/p>\n<p>Third, ask what happens if the identified savings do not materialise. A consultant with a genuine risk-share model will have a clear answer. A consultant who pivots to discussing &#8220;implementation support&#8221; when asked this question is telling you that the savings risk sits with you, not with them.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Pro tip:<\/strong> Request that the consultant describe one engagement where their initial diagnostic identified lower savings than their threshold, and explain what happened. A credible firm will have a clear answer. A firm that claims this never happens is either cherry-picking its case studies or has a very low savings threshold to begin with.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"internal-readiness-questions-you-must-answer-first\">Internal Readiness Questions You Must Answer First<\/h2>\n<p>A transport optimisation consultant can only surface savings that your organisation is structurally willing to act on. Before you begin any evaluation, you need honest answers to four internal questions.<\/p>\n<p>Can your planning team implement changes to routing logic without IT approval cycles that will delay execution by six months? If the answer is no, the fastest-return optimisations may be blocked by internal process, not by a lack of insight.<\/p>\n<p>Does your operations director have authority to change fleet allocation rules, or do those rules sit within a contract or SLA framework that requires commercial renegotiation? Some of the largest cost leaks in fleet operations are embedded in contract structures that planners cannot modify unilaterally. A good consultant will identify them anyway, but you need to know in advance whether acting on the findings is within your direct control.<\/p>\n<p>Are your planners likely to see an optimisation engagement as a threat to their expertise or as a support tool? Resistance from the planning team is a consistent barrier to realising identified savings. The best consultants manage this dynamic explicitly. Ask how a candidate firm handles planner engagement during the diagnostic period.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, do you have a clear mandate from your senior leadership to act on findings that challenge existing operational assumptions? Optimisation findings that confirm current practice are easy to implement. Findings that reveal that a long-standing routing rule is costing you \u00a340,000 per year require someone with authority to make an uncomfortable change. Know before you start whether that authority exists.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"frequently-asked-questions\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"what-is-the-difference-between-a-transport-optimisation-consultant-and-a-logistics-technology-vendor\">What is the difference between a transport optimisation consultant and a logistics technology vendor?<\/h3>\n<p>A transport optimisation consultant identifies where your current operation is leaking cost and tells you what to change. A logistics technology vendor sells you software and helps you implement it, with the implicit assumption that new software is the solution. These are fundamentally different problems. If your cost leak is in planning logic or fleet allocation behaviour, new software will not fix it unless the underlying decision rules also change. The best consultants work within your existing technology infrastructure rather than recommending replacement.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"how-long-should-a-credible-transport-optimisation-diagnostic-take\">How long should a credible transport optimisation diagnostic take?<\/h3>\n<p>A live operational diagnostic conducted with proprietary hardware can generate actionable findings within five working days. Interview-based or historical data reviews typically take four to eight weeks and produce less precise findings. The length of the engagement is less important than the quality of the diagnostic method. A five-day live deployment often produces more reliable data than a six-week interview process, because it captures actual operational behaviour rather than recalled or reported behaviour.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"what-is-a-realistic-savings-threshold-to-expect-from-fleet-management-consulting\">What is a realistic savings threshold to expect from fleet management consulting?<\/h3>\n<p>For operations running fleets of 20 or more vehicles across regular routes, a credible minimum savings threshold from a genuine optimisation engagement is \u00a3100,000 annually. Savings below that threshold are typically achievable through internal process review without external support. Consultants who project smaller savings are either working with very small operations or are calibrating their projections conservatively to manage expectations. The question to ask is not what the average saving is, but what the minimum verified saving has been across their last ten engagements.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"should-a-transport-optimisation-consultant-require-access-to-our-tms-or-fleet-management-system\">Should a transport optimisation consultant require access to our TMS or fleet management system?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes, but the access requirement tells you something about the methodology. A consultant who needs only read access to historical exports is working from reported data. A consultant who deploys hardware directly into your live transport system is capturing operational behaviour in real time. Both require system access, but the second approach surfaces cost patterns that the first approach cannot see. Ensure that any data access agreement includes clear terms around data security, retention, and use, particularly if the consultant is capturing live operational data.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"how-do-we-evaluate-transport-optimisation-consultant-proposals-when-we-cannot-easily-compare-methodologies\">How do we evaluate transport optimisation consultant proposals when we cannot easily compare methodologies?<\/h3>\n<p>Focus on three specific questions. First, ask how the consultant captures data: live observation or historical review. Second, ask who bears the financial risk if the identified savings are not achieved. Third, ask for a specific, named case study in your sector with a verifiable savings figure. A consultant who can answer all three questions clearly and specifically is worth serious consideration. A consultant who answers two of the three with generalities is telling you something important about the precision of their methodology.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"is-it-realistic-to-achieve-transport-cost-savings-without-replacing-or-upgrading-our-existing-systems\">Is it realistic to achieve transport cost savings without replacing or upgrading our existing systems?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes, and any consultant who says otherwise should be asked to clarify their commercial interest in system replacement. The majority of structural cost leaks in transport operations are in decision rules and planning logic, not in software capability. Your TMS can execute a sub-optimal routing plan just as efficiently as it executes an optimised one. Changing the plan does not require changing the system. Genuine optimisation changes the inputs to your planning process, which means changing the rules your planners follow, not the tools they use.<\/p>\n<p>Have you been through a transport optimisation engagement that either exceeded or fell short of expectations? Share what made the difference, because the specifics help other operations directors ask better questions before they commit.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"references\">References<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mckinsey.com\">McKinsey and Company: research and insights on supply chain performance and logistics cost reduction strategies<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/organisations\/department-for-transport\">UK Department for Transport: official data on freight and fleet operations, vehicle utilisation, and transport efficiency policy<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.statista.com\">Statista: statistical data on logistics industry costs, fleet management benchmarks, and supply chain spend in the UK and Europe<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\">Forbes: analysis and commentary on operations management, fleet consulting trends, and logistics cost optimisation for executives<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.cips.org\">Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply: professional standards and guidance for evaluating consultancy proposals and managing supplier relationships in logistics<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A practical buyer&#8217;s checklist for fleet and logistics executives evaluating a transport optimisation consultant. Learn what to demand, what to avoid, and how to verify savings claims before you commit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":63,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_wpscppro_dont_share_socialmedia":false,"_wpscppro_custom_social_share_image":0,"_facebook_share_type":"","_twitter_share_type":"","_linkedin_share_type":"","_pinterest_share_type":"","_linkedin_share_type_page":"","_instagram_share_type":"","_medium_share_type":"","_threads_share_type":"","_google_business_share_type":"","_selected_social_profile":[],"_wpsp_enable_custom_social_template":false,"_wpsp_social_scheduling":{"enabled":false,"datetime":null,"platforms":[],"status":"template_only","dateOption":"today","timeOption":"now","customDays":"","customHours":"","customDate":"","customTime":"","schedulingType":"absolute"},"_wpsp_active_default_template":true},"categories":[1],"tags":[76,77,75],"class_list":["post-62","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorised","tag-fleet-management-consulting","tag-logistics-consulting-uk","tag-transport-optimisation-consultant-evaluation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/63"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flow-dynamics.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}