When Right-Sizing Goes Wrong: Lessons from Public-Sector Fleets
Right-sizing is one of the most discussed strategies in government fleet management. Reduce underutilized vehicles. Consolidate departments. Eliminate waste. On paper, the logic is straightforward.
In practice, right-sizing can create disruption, resistance, and unintended costs if executed without structure. The goal is not simply to shrink a fleet. The goal is to align vehicle supply with real operational demand while maintaining service reliability.
Public-sector agencies that approach right-sizing as a budget exercise often encounter setbacks. Those that treat it as an operational strategy tend to sustain results.
Mistake 1 — Cutting Based on Snapshot Data
Utilization reports from a single quarter rarely tell the full story. Seasonal demand, program shifts, and one-time events can distort short-term trends.
Agencies sometimes identify low-use vehicles and remove them quickly, only to face shortages during peak periods. This creates frustration and pushes departments toward defensive booking or increased personal mileage reimbursement.
Right-sizing requires multi-period data analysis and contextual review before making asset decisions.
Mistake 2 — Ignoring Behavioral Factors
Utilization data does not always reflect true demand. It reflects behavior under current conditions.
If drivers lack reliable access, struggle with key pickup, or do not trust availability, they may avoid shared vehicles altogether. Low utilization in these cases does not mean the vehicle is unnecessary. It may indicate structural friction.
Before reducing inventory, fleets should evaluate access workflows, reservation rules, and enforcement consistency.
Mistake 3 — Failing to Rebalance Before Removing
Right-sizing should begin with reallocation, not elimination.
Many public-sector fleets operate across multiple departments or locations with uneven demand. Vehicles sitting idle in one facility may be critically needed in another.
Without granular location-level reporting, agencies risk cutting assets that could have been redistributed more effectively.
Mistake 4 — Overlooking Policy Enforcement
Right-sizing depends on accurate data. If reservations can be made outside policy, extended indefinitely, or canceled without accountability, utilization reports may overstate or understate true demand.
Automated enforcement ensures the data guiding right-sizing decisions reflects consistent behavior rather than informal workarounds.
Mistake 5 — Treating Right-Sizing as a One-Time Event
Fleet demand evolves. New programs emerge. Departments expand or consolidate.
Right-sizing should be an ongoing discipline supported by regular reporting and review, not a single initiative driven by budget pressure. Agencies that revisit utilization quarterly or annually maintain alignment without creating operational shocks.
Case Study: Forsyth County, North Carolina
Forsyth County approached right-sizing with a structured, data-driven strategy supported by FleetCommander reporting. Instead of removing vehicles immediately, the county reviewed multi-period utilization, reassigned underused assets, and strengthened policy enforcement to ensure accurate data.
This measured approach allowed the county to reduce fleet size responsibly while maintaining service reliability, ultimately contributing to more than $800,000 in savings. The success came from disciplined evaluation rather than rapid cuts.
The Bottom Line
Right-sizing can deliver substantial savings for government fleets, but only when grounded in reliable data, behavioral awareness, and ongoing oversight. Agencies that avoid reactive cuts and focus on structured alignment are far more likely to achieve sustainable results without compromising service.
