Kelvin Haulage: Build a Platform or Save the Contract?
Kelvin Haulage Group is a third-generation family transport business: AUD 310 million revenue, 1,400 staff and 400 owner-drivers under contract. Two customers generate 62% of revenue. The larger, a national grocer, opens a highly automated distribution centre in 2027 and has told the market it expects linehaul rates 30% lower. Its contract with Kelvin is re-tendered in nine months.
LinehaulX, a digital freight brokerage, has taken 8% of the east-coast spot market in two years by matching loads dynamically and paying owner-drivers within 48 hours rather than 30 days.
The CEO, a 34-year-old third-generation family member, wants to build a proprietary load-matching platform in-house: AUD 14 million over 24 months. The CFO prefers acquiring a small transport management software vendor for around AUD 9 million. The COO argues neither matters if the grocer's contract is lost. Three family shareholders plus two independents sit on the board, and the shareholders' agreement requires unanimous approval for capital expenditure above AUD 5 million.
1. Evaluate the build, buy and 'fix the core first' options. Make a recommendation for the next board meeting and state the decision rule you applied.
Read the worked answer
Reframe the question. The board is being asked to choose a technology route, but the strategic question is whether Kelvin's value proposition survives the grocer's automation. Do the arithmetic: if the grocer is roughly AUD 120 million of revenue and rates fall 30%, around AUD 36 million of revenue disappears. At a transport contribution margin in the low teens, that is most or all of group EBITDA. Neither platform option answers that.
Build (AUD 14 million, 24 months). The critical objection is not cost or execution - it is liquidity. A load-matching marketplace is a two-sided network; its value depends on network density. Kelvin's own freight is not enough to sustain a marketplace, and LinehaulX already owns the density. Kelvin would be building a competitor to a network it cannot populate.
Buy (AUD 9 million). Faster, brings visibility, ETA and settlement capability, and can be white-labelled. The product is commoditising, so the price must reflect that; and integration of a small software vendor into a haulage culture is real work.
Decision rule: no irreversible commitment above the AUD 5 million threshold until (a) the tender outcome is known and (b) the proposed capability is shown to move a metric the grocer scores.
Recommendation: proceed with the acquisition, capped and contingent on due diligence; interconnect with an existing freight exchange rather than build a rival; and immediately cut owner-driver settlement from 30 days to 7 days. That last action is nearly free, directly neutralises LinehaulX's differentiator, and can be done before the tender.
2. The shareholders' agreement requires unanimity for anything above AUD 5 million. How would you design and run the decision process to reach a durable decision rather than a split board?
Read the worked answer
Diagnose the governance, not just the vote. Unanimity above AUD 5 million was written into a shareholders' agreement designed for a smaller business with a single family generation. It now makes the board structurally incapable of making a major capital decision, which is a governance defect that will recur.
Separate 'consent' from 'decision'. Before the board meeting, hold bilateral conversations with each of the five directors to surface objections and the conditions under which each would say yes. The board meeting should ratify a decision that is already durable, not discover one.
Legitimise the information. Commission the technical due diligence and an independent valuation jointly - approved by the independents, not the CEO - so that disagreement is about strategy rather than about whose numbers are trusted.
Do not structure around the threshold. Splitting the transaction into AUD 4.9 million tranches to avoid unanimity is bad faith and would permanently damage trust in a family company where trust is the governance mechanism. Name this explicitly to the board so nobody proposes it.
Recalibrate the agreement. Propose raising the threshold to AUD 10 million with a four-of-five majority for items within an approved strategy, retaining unanimity for related-party transactions, family employment, dividend policy and any change of control. Add a deadlock clause and an independent chair with a casting vote on procedural matters only.
Durability test: the decision should survive the departure of any one director. If it does not, the process is not finished.
3. Set out how you would lead the 400 owner-drivers through a move to dynamic load allocation, and the legal risks that constrain your approach.
Read the worked answer
Treat resistance as rational. Under dynamic allocation a driver loses certainty of income, not just familiarity. Owner-drivers are small businesses with fixed finance costs; a variable run allocation is a direct risk transfer to them, and LinehaulX is actively recruiting exactly this group. The resistance is an economic response and should be answered in economic terms.
Legal constraint first. Owner-drivers are independent contractors engaged under contract. A move to algorithmic allocation that materially controls how, when and by whom work is performed risks being characterised as employment, with exposure under the Fair Work Act including sham-contracting and adverse-action provisions. The allocation model should be designed to preserve genuine operational independence - the driver retains refusal rights and route discretion - and the contracts should be reviewed before, not after, implementation.
Also constrain the algorithm. Under heavy vehicle chain-of-responsibility obligations, any scheduling engine must not create speed or fatigue pressure. Build maximum-hours and speed-compliance constraints into the allocator itself, and document that you did.
Levers, in order of leverage: seven-day payment (immediate, cheap, directly competitive); an income floor or guaranteed minimum kilometres for a defined transition period; transparency of the allocation logic with a documented dispute path; and a pilot cohort of the most engaged drivers sharing in the productivity gain. Communicate in their unit of account - cents per kilometre and utilisation - not in corporate language about transformation.