Skip to content
← All casesNew Business DesignEnterprise

New Business Design: Container Transportation

3PL expeditor from scratch — target TOP-3 operator (>6%, 361K TEU/year), TCO ₽297.8M, quote time from >60 min to <5 min

Problem

What doesn't work

The largest freight railcar operator (140K+ railcars) had no container transportation business. All processes were designed for railcars — containers require multimodal capability (auto+terminal+rail+port, up to 8 legs). Competitor TransContainer processed orders in 3.5 person-days, PGK — in 4.25. Without automation, the strategy required +76 FTE above plan, otherwise −30% revenue (₽1.6B).

Solution

Architectural approach

Designed a new business line from scratch — 3PL expeditor for multimodal container transportation. End-to-end process of 12 steps: from transport solution calculation to document generation. Architecture fork of 3 variants (Open Source, 1C, SAP TM) — SAP TM selected. Dynamic pricing. Client portal (ЛКК) as sales channel.

Challenges

What made it hard

The company had never done containers — all competencies were railcar-based. Multimodality (auto+terminal+rail+port, up to 8 legs) — each leg with its own logic and integrations. Without automation, +76 FTE needed; with automation, risk of stretching the ₽297.8M TCO. Competitor TransContainer had 20+ years in the market — PGK was entering from scratch.

Role

My role & contribution

CTO / Technical Director

Designed the new business from scratch: decomposition into 7 multimodal service blocks, 3-variant architecture fork (Open Source, 1C, SAP TM). Developed C4 diagrams (Context, Container, Component), NFR checklist. Justified ₽297.8M TCO and automation strategy (saving 76 FTE).

Demo

How it looks

Screenshots

Real screenshots

Architecture

System architecture

Container Transport Multimodal Architecture (C4)CustomerЛКК (Personal Cabinet)quote in <5 minSystemsSAP TM selectedCRMElardoTariff CalcTransport legs🚛Auto leg🏗Terminal🚂Rail legPort3 variants evaluatedOpen Source (ASUMP)✗ Rejected1C (AB Cargo)✗ RejectedSAP TM✓ SelectedTCO 297.8M₽361K TEU/yearEBITDA >1.4B₽Non-Functional RequirementsRTORPOMTBFMTRS
Implementation

How it works

Decomposed into 7 multimodal service blocks (auto, terminal, rail, port). Priority #1: Rail leg (existing competencies, self-sustaining). 6 isolated functional automation blocks. C4 diagrams (Context, Container, Component), NFR checklist (RTO/RPO/MTBF/MTRS). Target systems: SAP TM, S/4, Client Portal, Elardo, Tariff Calculator.

Architecture Decision

Why this way

SAP TM + Client Portal instead of Open Source or 1C

Alternative

Open Source (ASUMP/Inteltech) or 1C (AB Cargo)

Why it didn't fit

Open Source: no ready multimodal module, high customization risks. 1C: doesn't cover rail leg specifics and Etran/RZD integration. SAP TM: already used for railcars, maximum reuse of existing infrastructure and competencies.

Result

Maximum reuse of existing SAP landscape. Minimum T2M for rail leg

Metrics

Results

01
Target: TOP-3 operator, >6% market share, 361K TEU/year
02
TCO: ₽297.8M for 2022–2026 (₽65.1M in 2022)
03
EBITDA >₽1.4B, productivity >1400 TEU/employee
04
Quote time: >60 min → <5 min (via client portal)
05
OTIF >80%, billing 0% → >80% automated
06
₽50M+/year savings on FTE through automation
Business Impact

Impact on business

Launch of fundamentally new business — 3PL container transportation expeditor. Without automation: +76 FTE above strategy (₽585M) or −30% target revenue (₽1.6B). With automation: productivity from 1300 to >1400 TEU/employee, quotes in <5 min instead of >60 min, >80% orders via client portal.

Methods

Algorithms & patterns

New Business DesignC4 Architecture ModelNFR Checklist (RTO/RPO/MTBF)3-variant Architecture ForkTCO Model (5 years)
Stack

Technologies

  • SAP TM
  • SAP S/4
  • SAP BW
  • SAP PO/PI
  • Элардо
  • ЛКК
  • Тарифный калькулятор
  • CRM

Ready to discuss?

If you need an architect who builds autonomous AI systems — reach out.

Serbia-based · CET/CEST timezone · EU-aligned working hours · International contracts experience