At the Midwest Association of Rail Shippers winter meeting in Chicago, one speaker cut through the usual optimism about digital transformation with a corrective message that hit hard: "We know what good looks like. We just struggle to do it every day."
The speaker was talking about rail service reliability, but he could have been talking about any number of operational challenges in asset-heavy industries. The core problem wasn't a lack of technology, missing data, or outdated systems. It was a deeper, harder-to-solve issue: accountability gaps, misaligned incentives, and small, compounding failures that lead to service breakdowns.
This matters because too many modernization efforts start with the assumption that technology is the constraint. Buy the right software, implement the right AI model, digitize the workflow, and problems will solve themselves. But as this MARS session made clear, that's exactly backward.
The real constraint isn't technology. It’s accountability.
Rail operators have access to sophisticated tools. Railroads are investing heavily in predictive analytics, IoT sensors, and AI-powered decision-making platforms. BNSF, for example, recently rolled out systems that consolidate 14 dispatcher screens into a single pane of glass, provide predictive ETAs to customers, and enable data-driven operational decisions in real time.
These are significant technological advances. But the hard part isn't building the system. The hard part is making sure people use it consistently, that incentives align with outcomes, and that accountability is clear when things go wrong.
One speaker at MARS framed it bluntly: progress is reversible. Service improvements can slip back into old patterns if the underlying discipline isn't reinforced. Accountability, he argued, remains the hardest unsolved problem in the industry.
Tech should reinforce discipline and visibility
This perspective should ground how rail and fleet operators think about modernization. Technology should reinforce discipline and visibility, not replace it. Systems should make ownership and consequences clear, not obscure them behind dashboards and automation.
Here's what that looks like in practice:
Make accountability visible. If a maintenance window is missed, a compliance check skipped, or a handoff delayed, the system should surface that immediately, and make it clear who owns the next action. Technology that hides accountability creates more problems than it solves.
Design for follow-through, not just efficiency. Tools that optimize workflows are valuable, but only if they also ensure tasks get completed. Build in checkpoints, escalations, and feedback loops that prevent small lapses from cascading into larger failures.
Align incentives with outcomes. If the system measures the wrong things, or rewards behaviors that conflict with service reliability, even the best technology will fail. Modernization efforts need to address not just what people do, but why they do it.
Without team discipline, technology can exacerbate problems
The MARS speaker's message was a warning: don't assume technology will solve cultural or structural problems. If teams are siloed, if incentives are misaligned, if accountability is unclear, adding more technology often makes things worse.
This isn't an anti-technology argument. It's a pro-discipline argument. Technology is most valuable when it strengthens what already works and exposes what doesn't. But it can't create discipline where none exists.
For TXI, this perspective reinforces how we think about our work with rail and fleet operators. We're not selling software or chasing the latest AI trend. We're helping organizations build systems that make it easier to do the right thing every day, systems that surface problems early, clarify ownership, and make accountability unavoidable.
What "good" looks like: Operational discipline, not flashy tech
U.S. Sugar company presenting at MARS offered a useful counterpoint. They've built a logistics operation that depends on transparent communication and collaborative planning: annual meetings with train masters and division superintendents, week-by-week production and shipping plans shared a year in advance, mobile repair units stationed on-site to avoid delays.
This isn't flashy technology. Its operational discipline is supported by clear processes and aligned incentives. The result: reliable service, reduced cycle times, and fewer rejected shipments. That's the model. Technology should enable this kind of clarity and collaboration, not distract from it.
Many teams know what good looks like. Fewer have the space to unpack why it breaks down in practice. The Modern Industrialist Xchange exists to surface those conversations and share how industrial leaders are closing the execution gap together.
