Service standards & two-way scorecards
Stage 4 · Driver App, Communication & Service Standards
P2Initial MVP
Four-Lane View
Software Function
- ›Driver scorecard: on-time, claims, compliance — visible to the driver with improvement paths Facility scorecard: drivers rate dwell, treatment, safety — published to the network Client service review: OTP, exceptions, resolution times — auto-generated QBR packs
Service Provider / Admin
- ›Service desk runs the standard: coaching before penalties, patterns feed ops fixes Facility problem data drives client conversations ("your dock costs you carriers")
User — Driver / IOO
- ›Knows exactly where they stand and how to earn better loops Their facility ratings visibly change which freight we accept — their voice has teeth
Customer — Client / FF / NVOCC
- ›Sees their own facility scores and what they cost in capacity — honest feedback no broker dares CLIENT/FF/NVOCC give
Software Function
- ›Driver scorecard: on-time, claims, compliance — visible to the driver with improvement paths Facility scorecard: drivers rate dwell, treatment, safety — published to the network Client service review: OTP, exceptions, resolution times — auto-generated QBR packs
Competitors
Uber-style one-way ratings (drivers rated, never rating), DAT reviews (unstructured). Two-way accountability doesn’t exist.
Differentiation
One-sided ratings destroyed trust everywhere else. Symmetric scorecards operationalize "carrier-first" — and the facility data is a dataset nobody has.
Make It Better
First platform where a shipper fixes their dock because the data showed it cost them capacity — service standards become a two-way contract.