Order intake

Dispatch

Driver application

Tracking and customer communication

Exceptions

Fleet

Costing and invoicing

Customer portal

Reporting

Fleet Dispatch & Delivery Control Tower

Continuous location tracking drains battery, consumes data, and changes the relationship with drivers — particularly contracted ones. The recommendation is location captured at status events rather than continuous breadcrumbing, which answers the questions that actually get asked at a fraction of the cost and friction. A business that insists on continuous tracking should do so knowingly.

Live GPS tracking of drivers is a management decision before it is a feature.

Riders paid per delivery will not use an application that slows them down or costs them data. The application must be small, must work offline, and must be tested with actual riders before it's rolled out. Where riders are contracted rather than employed, the business may have no authority to mandate it at all, and that has to be established before the build, not after.

Driver adoption is the project.

Traffic here is not predictable enough to promise a time. The system communicates a window and tracks performance against it. Promising precision the operation cannot deliver converts a logistics system into a complaint generator.

Estimated delivery times will be wrong.

Stock dashboard

Order intake check

Pick list

Packing

Dispatch handover

Warehouse Inventory & Last-Mile Coordination

If staff pick from the shelf without confirming on the device, the system's stock figure drifts from reality within days. The honest design makes confirming fast — a scan, not a form — but the business has to actually enforce it, or the count becomes exactly as unreliable as before, just with a screen in front of it.

Real-time stock accuracy depends on picking discipline, and the system can't create that discipline by itself.

A parcel marked dispatch-ready here has to actually reach the dispatch board on the other side — if that handover isn't reliable, a parcel can sit ready in the warehouse while dispatch thinks it doesn't exist yet. The integration between the two needs to be treated as seriously as either system on its own.

Warehouse and dispatch are two systems that have to agree, and the handover between them is where problems hide.

Dispatch board

Multi-stop trips

Job detail

Status progression

Proof of delivery

Failure capture

Cash on delivery

Sync

Driver Application and Proof of Delivery

This has to be established before the build. A rider paid per delivery, using their own phone and their own data, is being asked to absorb a cost for the company's benefit. The workable answers are a data allowance, a small per-job uplift, or employment — all commercial decisions, none of them software. A business that assumes compliance will discover at go-live that half its riders are still using WhatsApp.

Where riders are contracted rather than employed, the business may have no authority to mandate the application at all.

Tracking link

Status display

Delivery window

Notifications

Proof access

Corporate view

Failure communication

Customer Tracking Portal

If drivers are inconsistent about marking collection, customers see deliveries stuck at "collected" for a day and lose more confidence than the phone calls were costing. This should not be sold to a business that has not first fixed capture — which usually means the Driver Application and Proof of Delivery concept comes first, even though this is the smaller and more attractive purchase.

This system is only as good as the status data behind it, and publishing bad data to customers is worse than publishing none.

The design shows status and location at status events only, which answers the question customers actually ask.

Exposing a driver's live location to customers is a privacy decision affecting a third party who has not consented.

Cost capture

Consumption

Revenue attribution

Margin views

Maintenance

Document expiry

Replacement signal

Fleet Cost and Route Profitability Intelligence

Whether workshop overhead is spread by distance, by vehicle count or by revenue will change which vehicle looks profitable. Afivox implements the rule the business chooses, shows the rule on every report, and refuses to present one allocation as objective truth. A vendor that hides the allocation method is producing numbers nobody should act on.

Allocating shared costs is an accounting judgement, not a calculation, and different reasonable choices produce different answers.

Where they currently live in a notebook, the first months of output are unreliable and should be labelled as such rather than presented as findings.

This depends entirely on fuel and maintenance data being captured consistently.