Tony & Sue

Tony and Sue had built their courier and last-mile delivery business together over nine years. twenty-three people across drivers, depot staff, and administration. $4.2m revenue servicing pharmaceutical chains, medical supply companies, and retail distribution clients across perth and the south-west region.

the partnership had divided functionally over the years. Tony managed operations and drivers, Sue managed the client relationships and administration. the division had worked when the business was smaller. at twenty-three people and $4.2m it had created a dynamic where both Tony and Sue were the operational ceiling of their respective halves of the business.

Tony was managing driver performance, route issues, and vehicle maintenance personally. he had a depot manager who ran the morning dispatch well but had never been given authority above the routine. Sue was managing every client relationship, every invoice query, and every contract renewal. she had two administrators who processed invoices and handled bookings. neither had ever been given client-facing authority.

the business had a fuel and route efficiency problem Tony had been aware of but not acted on. route planning had been done manually for nine years using the same logic Tony had developed when the business was half its current size. a review showed 14% route inefficiency. kilometres being driven that better planning would eliminate. at current fuel costs the inefficiency was costing approximately $96,000 annually.

the route optimisation produced $91,000 in annual fuel savings within the first cycle of the new routes. the depot manager managed a significant vehicle breakdown in month four, arranged a contractor, rerouted the affected run, and communicated with the client without Tony's involvement. Sue spent the recovered time on two new pharmaceutical client relationships she had been wanting to pursue. both were signed within six months. revenue grew from $4.2m to $5.4m in twelve months. Tony and Sue both took ten days off in month nine. the first time in nine years they had both been away simultaneously.

the route inefficiency had been costing the business for years. both partners knew their halves of the business had structural problems. neither had had the time or the headspace to address them because both were the operating centre of their respective functions. the structural change freed both people to fix the problems they already knew existed.