Customer
What the load requires
- Quote requirements
- Accessorials
- Insurance requirements
- Load type and weight
- Full truckload / LTL
- Temperature requirements
3PL LogisticsCarrier Matching
Carrier Matching.
A ranked lead is not a final decision.
I designed the broker-facing experience around LLM-based carrier recommendations. The ranking narrowed the search; brokers still needed customer requirements, carrier capabilities, and relationship context to decide whom to contact.
- My Role
- UX Lead
- Recommendation comparison and broker decision support
- Interfaces & Systems
- Desktop / Web
- LLM
- Project Scope
- Broker-led
- Ranked carrier recommendations with human selection
01 / THE KNOWLEDGE PROBLEM
The match wasn't just in the data. It was in what brokers knew.
Recorded information could identify promising carriers, but important context remained in notes, emails, conversations, and brokers’ experience. I focused the interface on bringing that knowledge closer to the shortlist so brokers could evaluate a recommendation in context.
Carrier
What the carrier can provide
- Truck and equipment type
- Two-team driver availability
- Available capacity
- Insurance coverage
- Special licenses and certifications
- Operating capabilities
Internal knowledge
What experience had taught the team
- Customer carrier preferences
- Carrier route preferences
- Past service issues
- Customer-specific exclusions
- Preferred operating times
- Relationship history
One broker decision workspaceRequirements, capabilities, and relationship context available together.
A director developed the LLM-based matching algorithm. I designed the broker-facing recommendation, comparison, and decision-support experience. The three information groups show what brokers needed to consider; they do not imply that every item was an automated model input.
02 / THE DESIGN
A ranked shortlist inside the broker's working view.
I brought ranked recommendations and the surrounding operational context into the broker’s working view. The design supported reviewing candidates, comparing relevant information, and deciding which carrier to contact first.
Product evidence · Broker workspace
Carrier MatchingBROKER DECISION WORKSPACE
Interface model · Example data
Current freight inquiry
Review candidatesLoad and carrier recommendations
Customer requirements · Equipment · Availability · Broker context
Ranked matchesLoad requirementsNotes & history
| Compare | Priority | Carrier | Equipment | Availability | Commercial | Context to check | Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Candidate ARanked lead | Reefer | Confirm | Review quote | Recorded fitVerify recent history | ||
| 02 | Candidate BAlternative lead | Reefer | Confirm | Review quote | Review notesBroker has newer context | ||
| 03 | Candidate CFurther option | Confirm equipment | Check capacity | Review quote | Follow upOperating coverage | ||
| 04 | Candidate DFurther option | Reefer | Confirm | Review quote | Recent noteVerify relationship status |
Swipe the table sideways to inspect availability, commercial terms, and broker context.
Example data illustrates the interface hierarchy. The original LoadRunner artifact is available below.
Compare candidates.
Select two carriers to compare equipment, availability, commercial information, and broker context before choosing whom to contact.
The higher-ranked option is not always the best first call.
A suitable carrier must meet the load’s requirements, but current availability and recent relationship information can still change the order of outreach.
Inside the original tool.
The historical LoadRunner interface presented ranked carriers alongside rates, offer history, and representative information.
The shortlist narrowed the search. The broker retained the decision.
The design treated ranking as a starting point for review. Requirements, capabilities, and relationship context helped brokers assess the recommendation while retaining responsibility for the next call.
LATER EXPLORATION · FREIGHTLINK
Make the reasoning behind a match easier to inspect.
FreightLink extends this decision model by separating required eligibility, relative fit, and information that still needs broker confirmation.
- Check eligibilityIdentify required conditions.
- Compare fitEvaluate eligible candidates using recorded context.
- ChooseInspect details and confirm what may have changed.