The problem client was facing
Freight invoice disputes become hard to manage when they are handled through emails, spreadsheets and manual follow-ups instead of a defined workflow. This is a common problem for finance and logistics teams working across multiple carriers, locations and lanes.
This was the situation at the client. Every time an invoice did not match the agreed freight terms, someone had to chase it manually. There was no single place to see:
• who owned the dispute
• why it was raised
• what evidence was needed
• when it had to be resolved
The client was handling [1,250 disputes per month] across [48 carriers], and average resolution time had reached [23 days].
As volumes grew, finance and logistics teams spent more of their day investigating individual invoices instead of doing higher-value work.
The real issue was not the number of disputes. It was that no two disputes moved the same way from identification to resolution.
What was causing the problem?
The root cause was a disconnected dispute-management process.
An invoice discrepancy can come from many places freight rates, accessorial charges, quantities, transportation agreements or missing documents. But the information needed to check each of these sat in different systems, with different teams.
So every dispute passed through multiple hands:
• Finance raised the issue
• Transportation validated the charge
• Procurement confirmed the contracted rate
• The carrier supplied the missing documentation
Each handoff happened over email. Nobody could see where a dispute was stuck, or who was holding it.
How SCM Champs solved the problem
SCM Champs solved this by configuring a structured BN4L dispute workflow inside the client’s existing SAP transportation and settlement process not as a separate tool sitting outside it.
We set up the workflow so that every dispute followed the same path:
• Identified — the discrepancy is logged against the invoice
• Categorized — rate issue, accessorial, quantity or document mismatch
• Assigned — a named owner takes responsibility
• Routed — it goes to the right team based on the type of issue
Instead of chasing people over email, each dispute now moves through defined stages with clear ownership and visible status at every step.
Because the workflow sits inside the client’s existing settlement process, teams did not have to learn a new system or maintain a parallel one.
The results
• Average resolution time reduced from [23 days] to [6 days]
• [72%] of disputes now route automatically without manual triage
• Manual follow-up effort down by [40 hours per week]
• [35%] improvement in first-time dispute closure
The goal was not simply to automate dispute handling. It was to create a process that teams could see, own and improve.