Home · Solutions · Supply chain
Solution · Supply chainThe reference number reaches the driver before the trailer is loaded
Monitored carriage notified before the truck moves
Robots decide from the order which loads carry monitored goods, file the notification, put the reference number in front of dispatch and the driver, and keep it current until the load is closed.
Executive summary
A dispatcher decides what is monitored, types the notification and hopes nobody swaps the trailer.
What we build first is not a robot but a table: which goods, at which classification, above which weight or unit count, create a notification duty.
The reference number reaches the driver with the load assignment, so waiting at the ramp for a number stops being a scheduling variable.
the national monitoring register through its documented web services; the TMS order record; the Power BI exposure board
Business problem
Monitored goods
Poland's monitoring regime for road and rail carriage of sensitive goods binds three parties: the entity sending, the entity receiving and the carrier. Each files its own part of the notification and must supplement and update it. The carrier's part is the part that moves: vehicles change, drivers change, timings change, and every change is supposed to reach the register.
The work lands on the busiest desk in the company. A notification is not difficult; it is a form, and somebody who has filled it two hundred times fills it in minutes. What makes it expensive is where it sits: between a customer confirming a load and a driver being told to move.
Before the form there is a decision, and that decision is the part nobody has written down. Whether a consignment is monitored depends on the goods and how much of them there is, against a scope list the state sets by regulation and revises. Since 17 March 2026 it has covered knitted and other clothing above 10 kg gross weight, used clothing above 10 kg and footwear above 20 units a consignment.
At two or three notifications a day one person carries this in their head. At ninety a day nothing tracks which were filed, which were updated after a vehicle changed, which numbers are running down their ten days of validity, and which loads arrived unclosed. The exposure is the company's; the attention it rests on is whoever is at the desk.
How it works today
Below is what a haulage or forwarding office looks like before anything is automated.
- PersonA transport order arrives and a dispatcher reads the goods description to decide whether the load is monitored
- Risk of errorThe decision rests on one reading of a description written for another purpose, against a scope list nobody has to hand
- PersonSomebody signs in to the state portal and keys the notification: parties, goods, vehicle, destination
- WaitingThe load waits at the ramp for the number, and the driver waits for a message
- PersonThe number is pasted into the order comment in the TMS and sent to the driver in a chat
- Risk of errorThe vehicle, trailer or driver changes after dispatch, and the register is updated only if whoever filed remembers
- Risk of errorNothing watches which numbers are close to lapsing or which delivered loads were never closed
Why the current process costs more than it appears
The bill that never reaches the budget.
- Filing is a small job placed in the worst minute of the day, and the few minutes it takes get paid twice: at the desk and at the ramp.
- Consistency, not speed, is where a manual decision fails. Two dispatchers reading one goods description reach different answers, and neither is written down.
- Changes after dispatch get quietly skipped. Swapping a trailer takes seconds; returning to the register takes a sign-in, and the sign-in is what gets dropped.
- Nobody owns the tail. An unclosed notification and a lapsed number leave no mark on any report, so the office hears of them from an inspection or a receiver who cannot confirm.
Cost of inaction
A dispatcher who has done this for six years gets it right almost every time, and almost is the whole subject. The rows price minutes, and minutes are what a company carries indefinitely without noticing. What stays invisible is the distribution: nine hundred loads right and one filed against a trailer that never left.
Two things compound while nothing changes. The scope list moves by regulation, and each extension adds goods a dispatcher is expected to recognise on sight. The subcontractor share grows with the order book, and every subcontracted load raises the chance of a vehicle change after the notification.
A plausible organisation with realistic proportions. The figures are there to be recalculated on your data; they are not a client result.
A Polish carrier and forwarder: 140 tractor units, about 60 regular subcontractors, a dispatch office of eleven, a TMS with a documented file interface, Microsoft 365 E3, and one compliance officer who also carries licences.
1,900 monitored loads a month across fuels, chemicals and, since the scope widened, clothing and footwear; about one load in six changes vehicle, driver or timing after the notification has gone.
A dispatcher decides from the order whether a load is monitored, files the notification in the state portal, copies the number into the TMS order and sends it to the driver. Updates and closings are done from memory.
Around eleven minutes per load across deciding, filing, passing the number on and coming back to update or close it, with no list of open notifications, expiring numbers or unclosed entries.
Every order is screened against a monitored-goods table the compliance officer owns. Robots file the notification, write the number back to the order and to dispatch in Microsoft Teams, re-file when the plan changes, and raise what is expiring or unclosed.
In the modelled case the dispatcher reviews what a rule flagged instead of filing, numbers travel with the load assignment rather than behind it, and the compliance officer works from a list rather than memory. These are figures from a model, not anybody's records.
Proposed solution
What we build first is not a robot but a table: which goods, at which classification, above which weight or unit count, create a notification duty. Your compliance officer owns it, and every edit is versioned.
A robot reads each new or changed order in the TMS, matches its goods data against the table and, where a rule fires, assembles the notification from what the company already holds: the order, the vehicle, the driver, the route. A description too thin to classify holds the load and asks a person in Microsoft Teams.
What comes back matters as much as what goes out. The number is written to the order and posted to the dispatch channel, so it reaches the driver with the load assignment rather than an hour behind it. From there the notification is kept alive: a change of vehicle, driver or timing re-opens it, a delivery closes it, and an hourly pass flags numbers near their ten-day limit and loads that arrived unclosed.
Geolocation transmission we leave where the law puts it, in the locating device or the e-TOLL PL application on the vehicle; the automation checks only that a monitored load has a vehicle set up for it.
UiPath Orchestrator queues, time and event triggers, credential stores and audit; UiPath Integration Service connectors for Microsoft Teams and Microsoft Outlook 365, plus Connector Builder for the notification endpoint; UiPath Action Center actionable notifications in Microsoft Teams; Microsoft Power BI published to a Teams channel
The rule table and its versioning, the screening logic, the notification data set and its submission, the write-back to the TMS and to dispatch, the change and closing logic, and the expiry monitor
The TMS order and vehicle assignment through its documented file or API interface; the notification exchange against the published web-service specifications of the national channel, or against the SENT tool you already run
How the automated process works
- AutomationEvery new or changed order in the TMS is screened against the table: classification, weight or unit count, movement type, route
- PersonWhere the goods data does not resolve, the load is held and a dispatcher or the compliance officer decides in Microsoft Teams
- AutomationFor a load a rule catches, the robot assembles the notification from the order, the vehicle, the driver and the route, and submits it
- AutomationThe number is written back to the TMS order and posted to the dispatch channel, so it travels with the load assignment
- SystemA change of vehicle, trailer, driver or timing re-opens the notification and sends the update; a confirmed delivery closes it
- PersonAn hourly pass raises numbers near their ten-day validity and loads delivered without a closing entry as tasks with a name against them
Human-in-the-loop model
Automation handles
- Screening every order against the rule table, the same way every time, recording which version decided
- Assembling and submitting the notification, then writing the number back to the order and to dispatch
- Re-filing on a change of vehicle, driver or timing, closing on delivery, and watching the open list for expiring numbers
People decide
- What belongs in the monitored-goods table and how an unfamiliar cargo is classified
- Any load the rule cannot resolve, and whether it moves at all when a notification cannot be filed
- What happens to each item on the exposure list, and who answers for it
Before and after
Systems and integrations
The stack is deliberately short: one engine, one execution layer, one place where a person decides.
Inputs
- transport orders and their goods data in the TMS
- the vehicle, trailer and driver assignment
- the monitored-goods rule table
- confirmations of delivery
Automation layer
- UiPath Orchestrator
- UiPath Robots
- UiPath Integration Service
- UiPath Action Center
Target systems
- the national monitoring register through its documented web services
- the TMS order record
- the Power BI exposure board
Human touchpoints: Action Center tasks in Microsoft Teams; the dispatch channel carrying reference numbers; the exposure board in the compliance officer's Teams tab
Technologies used
one queue item per monitored load; time and event triggers, retries, credential store, audit
Areads orders, posts numbers to dispatch, carries the notification exchange
Aclassification questions and exposure items decided where the dispatcher works
Athe dispatch channel carrying reference numbers and the surface every task is answered on
Athe exposure board: filed, open, expiring, unclosed, by customer and rule
Athe documented Polish channel for the monitoring register: two-way XML against published specifications, with a test environment
BIllustrative economic model
Numbers you can check against your own data.
Four short jobs make up the eleven minutes: deciding whether the order is monitored, keying the notification, getting the number to the yard and the driver, and coming back when the plan changes or the load is delivered. €22 an hour is an illustrative fully loaded cost for a dispatch role in Poland, and the volume belongs to this scenario rather than to a client's records. Penalties sit outside the arithmetic on purpose, because what the regime charges for a given failure is set in law this page does not quote.
Run the numbers on your data
An illustrative estimate from your own inputs. It models released capacity; it is not a promise of savings.
Business benefits
- The reference number reaches the driver with the load assignment, so waiting at the ramp for a number stops being a scheduling variable
- Which loads are monitored becomes a rule your compliance officer wrote and changes in one place, not a judgement under time pressure
- A vehicle, trailer or driver change reaches the register because the change triggers the update, not because somebody remembered
- Expiring numbers and unclosed notifications become a working list with names on it, days before either reaches an inspector
- Dispatch capacity goes back to dispatch, and new goods in scope are absorbed by editing a table rather than briefing a room
The management view
- Compliance stops being a personal quality of two experienced dispatchers and becomes a documented rule with a version history and an owner
- Every monitored load carries its record: which table version screened it, what was filed, what changed, when it closed, who touched it
- Exposure is visible before it matures: open notifications, numbers running down, loads delivered and not closed, ranked by age
Board-level KPIs
Security and governance
The automation holds exactly the rights it needs, and not one more.
- The identity that files a notification is separate from the one that reads the TMS, each carries only the rights its own job needs, and neither secret lives inside a workflow
- Every notification keeps its record: the order behind it, the table version that screened it, the data submitted, each update, the closing entry, and the name behind any manual decision
- The rule table is versioned and change-controlled by the compliance officer, and each run records which version applied, so a decision taken in March can be explained in November
- Personal data here is limited to what the notification requires about the driver and the vehicle; the exposure board works on load references rather than names
- Orders, tasks and reports stay inside your Microsoft 365 tenant, and the robots run from the EU region of UiPath Automation Cloud
Why now
The scope list is not settled and moves by regulation. Since 17 March 2026 it has covered knitted and other clothing above 10 kg gross weight, used clothing above 10 kg and footwear above 20 units a consignment, alongside the goods a fuel haulier has watched for years. A table one person edits absorbs the next change; a briefing does not.
The state side of this landscape is the best documented part of it. Poland's customs and monitoring systems, the road-monitoring register among them, are reachable through PUESC as two-way XML against published web-service specifications, with a test environment. That is the difference between an integration and a browser tab kept open all day.
Priced as salaried work, the desk time modelled above runs at roughly €7,700 a month, before a single reference number lapses unnoticed at the ten-day mark.
Relevant executive roles
The company's position under the monitoring regime depends today on whoever is at the dispatch desk in the minute an order lands
A reference number stops being a reason a loaded truck stands still, and eleven dispatchers get their afternoons back
What counts as monitored becomes a table with a version history, and the exposure list exists before anyone asks for it
Common questions and objections
Most of the time they do, and that is not the same as being able to show it. What changes is not the quality of the decision but its consistency and its record: the same rule on every order, with the table version that decided it, including on the Friday when the scope has changed and nobody has read it.
Then filing is the part we do not rebuild. What is missing around such a tool sits either side of it: the screening that decides which orders reach it, the write-back to the order and the driver, the re-file when the plan changes, and the list of what is still open.
The load is held and a person is asked, in Teams, with the order in front of them. Their decision goes back into the table with a name and a date, so it is made once.
When this is not the right solution
- A handful of monitored loads a month, where a written checklist and one named owner cost less than a rules layer and its upkeep
- Goods data too poor to classify anything: if most order lines are free text with no classification and no weight, the first project is order intake
- No documented way to reach the notification channel and no appetite to build against the published specifications; the screening and the exposure list still pay, but the filing stays manual
A question for the next management meeting
Which written table do our dispatchers apply when they decide a load is monitored, who owns it, and when was it last checked against the scope actually in force?
Implementation approach
A scope without ambiguity, before anything is signed.
We deliver
- The monitored-goods rule table, written with your compliance officer from your own order history and versioned from day one
- Screening of every new and changed order against it, with a held-load path for anything it cannot resolve
- Notification submission, the write-back of the number to the order and to dispatch, and the re-file when the plan changes
- The expiry and exposure monitor, its tasks in Microsoft Teams and the Power BI board
- A parallel run where the robot prepares and a dispatcher still files, then a controlled cutover with hypercare
We need from you
- Three months of transport orders with the goods data as it actually arrives, and the notifications filed against them
- A named compliance officer who can decide what belongs in the table and what a held load does
- Technical access to the TMS interface, a test environment for the notification channel, and a service identity for each
Stages
Discovery
One month of orders and notifications read end to end: what was monitored, what changed, what was never closed
Rules
The monitored-goods table and the held-load rules signed off by your compliance officer
Build
Screening, submission, write-back, change and closing logic, Teams tasks and the exposure board
Parallel run
The robot prepares while dispatchers still file, and the two answers are compared load by load
Go-live
One customer group first, then the rest, with hypercare and a weekly review of the table
Quick win. Effort follows how cleanly your TMS exposes goods data and the vehicle assignment, how many goods categories the table must cover, and how the notification channel is reached.
The trailer was swapped at the loading bay. The register still names the old one.
Send us one month of your transport orders with the notifications filed against them and the changes that came after dispatch. You get back the share a rule table would have decided alone, and where your exposure sits.
Classify one month of your loadsThe neighbouring process usually has the same problem
A truck waits while a broker refreshes a screen. Most of those rejections were visible in the documents.
View solution Operations & qualityNo driver dispatched on an expired documentDriver and vehicle documents expire on fourteen calendars. Dispatch checks them by asking whoever keeps the file.
View solution Supply chainTransport orders into the TMS without retypingNinety customers, ninety ways of sending an order, and a forwarder retyping every one into the TMS.
View solutionIndustries we deliver this in most oftenTransport & logistics