Cargo Theft Findings Put Response Ownership Behind The Push For Active Monitoring
A shipment alert can identify a suspicious stop without ensuring that anyone verifies the movement or contacts the right people. Tive’s latest cargo-theft research associates active monitoring with stronger reported recovery outcomes, but the operating requirement extends beyond installing a tracker. Someone must receive the warning, establish whether the shipment is in danger and have authority to escalate. Separately, comments from Millhouse Logistics show how carrier evaluation and disruption management shape the broader response capability behind freight visibility.
Recovery Figures Need Careful Interpretation
Tive’s survey of 442 supply chain, transportation and security leaders found that 53% of respondents using route-deviation detection reported recovering more than half of stolen cargo. The corresponding share among respondents without that capability was 29%. Those figures describe reported outcomes across different groups, rather than a controlled demonstration that the technology caused the difference. They nevertheless make response capability a relevant question when shippers evaluate monitoring investments. Tive
In written comments to The Supply Chainer, Richie Daigle, Supply Chain Evangelist at Tive, described the operational steps that should follow a suspicious signal. “Every alert should have a clear next step. Confirm the shipment’s location, reach the driver or carrier on a number already on file, and escalate to security and law enforcement if the story doesn’t match the data.” Using an established contact number gives the verification process a reference independent of potentially fraudulent instructions. The sequence also distinguishes checking an anomaly from treating every deviation as confirmed theft.
Detection Must Reach Someone Authorized To Act
Daigle recommended prioritizing continuous monitoring for high-value freight, theft-prone routes and shipments handled by new carriers. He also argued that escalation arrangements should be written before an incident occurs. That requires decisions about who watches the data, how quickly they should respond and which actions they are authorized to take. A warning delivered to an unattended inbox does not provide the same operating capability as a monitored queue with a defined response. The distinction becomes especially important when the shipment is still moving and the available intervention window is narrowing.
Millhouse’s comments address a related requirement in time-critical freight, although they concern service risk rather than a specific cargo-theft recovery system. Bryan Foe, Chief Executive Officer of Millhouse Logistics, previously told The Supply Chainer that the company was strengthening carrier risk management within its IVIA technology. “That means improving how we evaluate carrier capacity, assess risk and select the right providers for time-critical shipments.” He identified carrier performance, pickup and delivery punctuality, capacity reliability and mitigation of service disruptions as measures of progress. Those measures connect information quality to the operational decisions that follow it.
Separate Security Incidents From Service Exceptions
A late truck and a suspected fraudulent pickup may both produce a route or timing exception, but they require different responses. Daigle’s sequence focuses on verifying the shipment and escalating a potential security incident. Foe’s comments concern selecting dependable capacity and managing service disruption. Combining these perspectives does not mean the same workflow can handle every exception. It means the monitoring process needs enough context to send each case to the appropriate decision-maker.
For shippers, the useful performance chain runs from detection through verification, escalation and outcome. Faster notification is valuable when it leaves more time for an authorized response, but notification speed alone does not establish recovery capability. Tive’s survey offers evidence of an association between monitoring practices and reported outcomes; Millhouse describes the service measures it intends to improve. Neither removes the need to examine how a particular operation handles an alert outside normal office hours. The operational asset is the complete response process, including the people and decisions behind the signal.
