Agree the baseline.
Select a comparable historical period, the vehicle, routes and workload. Check the source records and agree which costs and time measures can reasonably be compared.
Measure first.
Make the result credible.
Start with one vehicle and a clearly agreed operational problem. Capture a reliable baseline, record what changes and review the evidence before making a savings claim.
Measurement programme No completed K-LYNK pilot results are published on this page. Calculator scenarios are illustrative and are not pilot evidence.
One truck. A clear baseline. A documented review.
Assess and configure.
Review vehicle history, inspections, service schedules and the reporting process. Set responsibilities, record the starting position and train the people capturing the evidence.
Monitor actual work.
Capture distance, fuel, maintenance activity, downtime and administration time. Preserve receipts, work orders and dated records. Note changes in routes, workload and fuel prices.
Review the evidence.
Reconcile the records, compare like-for-like measures and discuss improvements, costs and limitations with the client. A result may be positive, neutral or negative.
What a measured case study needs.
| Measure | Evidence | Fair comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Maintenance costs | Invoices, work orders, repair approvals and distance | Cost per kilometre, with exceptional repairs identified separately |
| Fuel use and spend | Fuel slips, litres, odometer readings and route records | Litres per 100 km and fuel cost per km; distinguish consumption from price changes |
| Downtime | Dated out-of-service and return-to-service records | Hours unavailable for comparable work; cash impact only where evidenced |
| Administration time | Timed tasks, timesheets or a consistent activity log | Minutes per comparable task or trip, using the same definition before and after |
| Implementation costs | Software, support, training and setup charges | Recurring and one-off costs reported separately |
| Operating conditions | Routes, payload, trip count, distance and workload | Explain material differences and avoid attributing every change to the software |
What was happening?
Client context, vehicle scope, dates, source records and the specific problem being measured.
What changed?
The configured workflow, technician involvement, training, recorded actions and implementation costs.
What does the evidence show?
Before-and-after measures, normalisation, net cost impact, limitations and client sign-off.
A savings claim must survive a fair comparison.
Subtract the agreed recurring software and support costs from any substantiated recurring cost reduction. Show one-off implementation costs separately. Avoid counting the same benefit twice. A yearly projection, if appropriate, must be labelled as a projection rather than a measured full-year result.
A public case study will be prepared only after the records are checked and the client agrees to publication or an appropriate anonymised version. We will not invent a testimonial, client name or measured saving.
Pilot scope, fees, operational responsibilities and any safety or workshop work must be agreed before commencement. The pilot does not replace required inspections, qualified maintenance or management approvals.