Legacy TMS: the technology debt holding logistics back

In a context where supply chains must be increasingly agile, connected and field-oriented, many companies nevertheless remain trapped by legacy TMS that have become rigid over time.
These tools, often developed in-house and tailored to the challenges of their time, now generate significant technology debt with far-reaching consequences: a frozen organization, as if set in stone; slowed innovation; and operational needs left unmet.

Below, we examine the mechanisms behind this dependency, the issues it creates, and why it has become essential to rethink the role of logistics information systems in support of business processes – not the other way around.

What is a legacy TMS?

A legacy TMS is generally a system implemented several years – sometimes decades – ago, within a technological and organizational context very different from today’s. These solutions – often developed internally at the time – are typically characterized by:

• A monolithic architecture.
• Very limited integration capabilities.
• Strong dependency on the vendor or internal developers.
• Slow and sometimes very costly evolution.
• Low adaptability to new field-level use cases.

While these TMS have delivered significant value in the past, they gradually become a constraint when they no longer keep pace with business and technology evolution.

Technology debt applied to TMS

Technology debt refers to the accumulation of past technical or functional decisions that may have been relevant in the short term but generate costs, constraints and risks in the long term.
In the case of legacy TMS, this debt manifests itself in several ways:

• Inability or great difficulty integrating modern tools via APIs.
• Limited compatibility with connected field devices (driver smartphones, IoT sensors, real-time track & trace).
• Dependence on heavy, costly custom developments.
• Extreme complexity when attempting to evolve any process.

The result? Every new business evolution turns into a long, risky and expensive IT project.

When the TMS freezes the organization

One of the most damaging effects of dependency on a legacy TMS is organizational stagnation.
Over the years, instead of evolving the tool to support field operations, teams have had to adapt their practices to the limitations of an obsolete TMS. This leads to:

• Business processes designed to work around system constraints.
• Operational workarounds becoming the norm.
• A loss of meaning and efficiency in day-to-day operations.

In some cases, current logistics processes are so deeply embedded in the TMS that even considering a system change becomes extremely difficult – and sometimes anxiety-inducing.

Vendor dependency: a strategic lock-in

Another key symptom of technology debt is excessive dependency on the TMS vendor or internal development teams. When dealing with an external vendor, this dependency results in:

• Limited negotiation power.
• High evolution and customization costs.
• Product roadmaps misaligned with the company’s specific needs.
• Near-impossibility of changing TMS without massively rethinking processes.

The company becomes locked into a long-term relationship that is endured rather than chosen, limiting innovation capacity and strategic agility.

In many industrial organizations and large enterprises, this dependency directly affects internal development teams. Indeed, many legacy TMS were developed in-house years – even decades – ago. These systems often rely on:

• Outdated or niche programming languages.
• Partial or obsolete documentation.
• Critical tacit knowledge held by a few key individuals.
• Aging internal teams, sometimes understaffed.

This situation creates a critical dependency on people rather than on the tool itself. Retirement, mobility or unavailability of certain developers can then become a major operational risk.
Instead of securing the transport information system, the organization becomes stuck in a defensive maintenance approach, where every change is perceived as risky, costly and complex. Once again, technology debt increases, further distancing the TMS from real business and field needs.

The gap between field needs and IT tools

While the TMS stagnates, field-level needs evolve rapidly:

• Real-time operational management.
• Increased collaboration with carriers.
• Better use of operational data.
• Integration of specialized tools (optimization, visibility, decarbonization, etc.).

A rigid TMS, unable to integrate easily into a modern digital ecosystem, becomes a constant source of friction between IT teams, business teams and field operations.

Rethinking the role of the TMS in the IT architecture

Breaking free from dependency on legacy TMS does not necessarily mean replacing everything overnight. However, it does require a deep rethink of:

• The role of the TMS within the overall architecture.
• Opening the information system via APIs.
• A more modular and scalable approach.
• Refocusing on field-level business processes.

The most advanced companies are adopting more agile and flexible architectures, where the TMS is no longer a rigid central block but an interoperable component serving operations – as is the case with our OneWorld TMS.

Conclusion

Dependency on legacy TMS has become a major strategic challenge for logistics organizations. Behind a familiar tool often lies heavy technology debt that slows innovation, rigidifies processes and distances IT systems from operational reality.

Regaining control of the transport information system means, above all, reaffirming a fundamental principle: tools must serve business processes, not constrain them.

This reflection is essential to drive transport digital transformation and build a resilient, scalable and truly field-oriented supply chain.