Sales and Operations Planning: A Guide for the Supply Chain Leader

SALES &
OPERATIONS
PLANNING:
A Guide For The Supply
Chain Leader
Avoiding The Pitfalls
and Potholes of S&OP
Implementation During the
Pandemic
Lore Cecere
Founder and CEO
Supply Chain Insights, LLC
Regina Denman
Client Service Director
Supply Chain Insights LLC

Disclosure //4
Executive Summary //5
What Is Sales and Operations
Planning? // 6
Below the Line Planning // 8
Definitions Matter //9
S&OP Pre-Pandemic
State // 11
Shifts in the Pandemic // 14
What Does Good Look Like? // 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5 9
2 2020 // SALES & OPERATIONS PLANNING

9, p. 13
ly balancing plans horizontally
een the sales/marketing teams
and the operations teams
The process is
out of balance with
an emphasis on operations
(logistics, manufacturing, and
procurement)
Balanced
between the
S and the OP
41%
More focused
on the OP
36%
Balance Their Primary S&OP Process
57%
out of balance
______________________________
Operations Study (Mar-May, 2019)
7)
to balance the “S” and the “OP” in the evolution of your [primary] S&OP process (even if you call it
ocess with which they are personally most familiar
Driving Process Maturity // 18
Why Is S&OP So Hard? // 19
Selecting the Right Technology // 20
Reccomendations // 23
Summary // 23
Navigatingthe Technology
Provider Landscape // 24
Appendix // 36
Other Reports in This Series // 38
15
24
22
3
SALES & OPERATIONS PLANNING // 2020

DISCLOSURE
Your trust is important to us. In our business, we are open and transparent about our
financial relationships and research processes. Also, we never share the names of
respondents or give attribution to the open comments collected in the research. This
research was 100% funded by the Supply Chain Insights team.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this report, we use past research and insights to provide a handbook for supply
chain leaders aligning teams and managing supply chains through the COVID-19
pandemic. To complete this report, we worked through four steps:
• Technology Briefings: In the period of January-March 2019, Supply Chain Insights
interviewed technology leaders and their references to gain an understanding of
their approach to improving Sales & Operations Planning. Since this time, we have
followed implementations in the market, gaining insights from business leaders and
consultants. Not all technology companies participated in the briefings. The lack of
participation did not exclude the Company from the report. We rate companies not
participating in the interview process based on insights from client experiences and
reference interviews from our database.
• Quantitative Assessment: In parallel, we fielded and completed a quantitative
survey to understand the maturity of processes in 2019. Over one-hundred business
leaders completed the quantitative study to understand S&OP satisfaction
• Business User Interviews: We interviewed more than fifty business users and
followed their deployments through the 2019 calendar year.
• Technology/Software Document Review: To ensure factual accuracy, we shared
the technology summary contained in this report to ensure factual accuracy before
publication. Of the vendors listed, 75% voluntarily participated in vendor briefings
and reference calls. For those that did not openly participate, we interviewed
companies in our reference database to gain insights.
OPEN CONTENT RESEARCH
This report is shared using the principles of Open Content research. The goal
is to share research widely to improve supply chain performance. You are
welcome to share this data freely within your company and across your industry.
All we ask for in return is attribution when you use the materials in this report. We
publish under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial-Share
Alike 3.0 United States, and you will find our citation policy here.

EXECUTIVE
OVERVIEW
Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) results, when
done well, are unarguable. In normal business conditions,
the return on investment for S&OP implementation is
seven months. There is also a correlation between S&OP
maturity and value (Price-to-Tangible Book Value (PTBV)).
In the pandemic, S&OP increases in importance.
The journey is tough. The average manufacturing
Company has been working on improving S&OP
for more than seven years, yet in 2019, only 38% of
companies in 2019 were satisfied with their processes.
Change management issues, dirty data, and inadequate
technology deployments riddle progress.
With this compelling value proposition, why are
companies stuck unable to power value? And, how
do processes need to change to manage through
these new and uncertain times? The barriers and
obstacles are deeply rooted in organizational change
management. Driving progress requires a focus on
change management and process redesign. Technology
is necessary, but not sufficient. The work effort is 60%
change management, 30% process definition and 10%
technology implementation.
Technology is needed to orchestrate the process, but
technology without change management is insufficient.
Working through political nuances is where most
companies get stuck. The discussions become political
and emotional, derailing the efforts to drive change
and align process redefinition. While there are many
technologies, the market is confusing, and 45% of
selections are poor fits for the business problem.
Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) is a cross-functional
process to align commercial and operations teams to drive
value. The processes focus on monthly and weekly planning with
a focus on improving planning on a tactical time horizon.
5

• Lack of Discipline on Focused Improvement: The
best processes start the cycle by reviewing customer
service data and analyzing the root cause of order
failures. The process then evaluates the value-added
contribution of the prior period plan to the business.
The inclusion of an after-action review process helps
to drive improvement for the next period.
While tactical planning horizons will vary in time
frames by industry—ten weeks to eighteen months in
consumer products and thirteen weeks to five years in
pharmaceuticals—an effective S&OP planning process is
never focused on the short-term results within the month
(or planning period). For clarity, working definitions of
time horizons include:
• Strategic Time Horizon/Network Design: A longer-
reaching planning period covering months and years
used to design asset and transportation strategies.
The best S&OP processes use the output of network
design as an input to the S&OP processes.
• Tactical Horizon: The planning period of weeks and
months stretching from order/inventory matching
to the planning of aggregate material contracts
and asset strategies. In this period, the focus is on
building a feasible plan by recognizing constraints in
the development of planned orders. There are two
types of planning technologies—material and asset-
centric. The right technology is needed to produce a
feasible plan.
• Operational Time Horizon/Slush Period: The
time horizon of order and inventory matching.
Connecting supply chain planning to S&OP execution
to planning—translation of a longer-focused plan
to operational management in days and weeks—is
critical to drive results and align the supply chain
in the COVID-19 pandemic. The slush period sits
between the order duration period and the tactical
period. The slush period is the time horizon for S&OP
execution—applying the S&OP plan from prior periods
to ensure better business results.
What Is Sales
and Operations
Planning?
S&OP is a tactical business process to align commercial
(sales and marketing) and operations (customer service,
manufacturing, procurement, and transportation) teams
to execute effectively. Success is dependent on strategy
clarity and the alignment of metrics to drive business
outcomes. For example, an efficient supply chain (lowest
cost/case) is not necessarily the most effective design.
In the pandemic, there is a need for a responsive supply
chain (shortest cycle) or an agile supply chain (same
cost, quality, and customer service given the level of
supply and demand disruption. Each definition is a
different supply chain mental model requiring design,
metrics alignment, and organizational education.
To drive value, process discipline within planning time
horizons matters. S&OP is a tactical process. What does
this mean? The focus of an S&OP planning process is
on the mid-to-long range planning period, while S&OP
execution processes align operations within the shorter
duration of the order cycle and the slush period . Three
common mistakes are:
• Reactive and Short-term Focus: A common mistake
for companies is a focus on the short-term duration
within the slush period throwing the supply chain out
of balance.
• Role of the Budget: The second mistake, as will be
seen in this report, is the lack of clarity of the role of
the financial budget. While leaders use the budget as
a process input, laggards tightly integrate the budget.
Within the short-term duration of S&OP execution,
process excellence hinges on the clear definition
of the supply chain forecast, the role of the budget,
and the use of insights from the sales pipeline
management process.

FIGURE 1. Supply Chain Planning Technology Architectures
line” and S&OP processes “above the line.” (The term “line”
is industry slang for the S&OP executive review meeting.)
The larger and more complex the company, the greater
the need for process definition on these two important,
yet complementary process areas.
In a recent discussion with a food and beverage
manufacturer of the research results for this report, the
comment was, “Over the past decade, we have made
more progress above the line than below the line in the
development of S&OP. Work below the line on S&OP has
become messier and more difficult with the increase in
business complexity.” We find this observation consistent
in our interviews.
• Executional Period/Order Duration: In this period,
the process focuses on shipping the order—the time
from confirming the order for customer delivery. The
order cycle times vary by industry: it averages one
day in consumer electronics, 2.7 days in consumer
products, and weeks/months in discrete industries.
Supply chain planning is a combination of analytics,
optimization engines, workflows, and rules. In Figure
1, the optimization engines are shown in boxes (while
the arrows highlight the workflows.). In the design of
the process, there is a need for process definition and
technologies to execute the S&OP planning “below the
NETWORK
DESIGN
TACTICAL
PLANNING
OPERATIONAL
PLANNING
EXECUTIONAL
PLANNING
Demand
Planning
Demand
Sensing
Order
Management
ATP/Allocation
Distribution
Planning (DRP)
Inventory
Optimization
(MEIO)
Deployment
Transportation
Planning
Production
Planning
Manufacturing
Execution
Systems
Aggregate
Buying
Material
Requirements
Planning
(MRP)
Network Plan
Sales and Operations Planning
SAFETY
STOCK
INBOUND
SHIPMENTS
APPOINTMENT
PLANNED
RECEIPTS
COMMITTED
FORECAST
CONSTRAINED
PLAN
SELL DELIVER MAKE SOURCE
Supply Plan
SUPPLY PLAN
CONSUMPTION
PLANNED ORDERS
PLANNED
SHIPMENTS
TYPE
Above the Line
Planning
Below the Line
Planning
Execution
Systems
7

flow to consider financial input, but not tightly coupling
finance and supply chain flows. While there is a need for
cross-functional visibility of different types of forecasts,
“integration” is a mistake.
In Figure 2, we show an example of a company
successfully building capabilities on both above the line
and below the line planning processes. The management
team review (MT) in step 4 is based on a disciplined
FIGURE 2. An Example of Business Leader Working Above and Below the Line Planning Processes
COMMERICAL PLANNING SUPPLY PLANNING
SCENARIO MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL INTEGRATION
2: Supply Review
-Supply Chain Dir.-
Monthly Cycle
Weekly Cycle
3: Alignment
-Finance Director-
Demand and
Supply Meeting
0: Business Building
-Revenue Mgt.-
4: MT Review
-General Manager-
1: Demand Review
-Sales Director-
Finance Integration
Revenue/Cost/Margin
Gaps bs Business Targets
Scenarios & Decisions
ONE Platform & Data Source
Rolling Forecasts
Below the Line Planning

DEFINITIONS
MATTER
What Is the Difference Between Integrated Business Planning
(IBP) and Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP)? The term
Integrated Business Planning (IBP), introduced into the market
in 2005 by Oliver Wight, is bandied about by many consultants
and technologists without a consistent definition. For some, it
is the connection of sales, finance, and supply chain processes,
while others view it as a more mature process variant of S&OP.
The difference is more than a nuance.
When companies view IBP as the connection of sales,
financial, and supply chain data, problems arise. The reason?
The data models and data definitions of sales, financial, and
supply chain planning do not naturally align. Unfortunately,
the only commonality is the term planning. As a result, the
concept of “connecting” enterprise data between functions
is fools play. Do not attempt to integrate the three forecasts.
The context of the data is different. The answer? Synchronize
and harmonize the data using visualization technologies
to model the impacts of the assumptions across the three
types of plans. In Table 1, to help with the synchronization/
harmonization efforts, we explain the differences.
SALES FINANCE SUPPLY CHAIN
DATA DEFINITION Pipeline opportunity for future
sales: the contract value of
sales account teams.
Currency view at a high-level
aggregation of a demand
hierarchy.
Volume view of market
potential at the most granular
level of shipping.
PLANNING LEVEL Customer/location data to
enable the modeling of a ship-
to-model definition.
Category or brand level
forecasting at a currency level.
An item at a shipping location.
The modeling is a ship from
model.
FOCUS A focus on customer
opportunity and pipeline
management.
Controlling costs and
managing profitability.
Maximizing customer service
through the production of a
feasible plan.
TABLE 1. Commonalities and Differences Between Sales, Finance and Supply Chain Planning
The term Integrated Business Planning(IBP) is
often used interchangeably with the phrase S&OP.
The differences between S&OP and IBP are often a
nuance. For some organizations it is the connection
of sales, financial and supply chain planning to drive
a common plan, but for others it is S&OP maturity.
Here we define IBP as a more mature form of S&OP.
9

In this evolution, there is a progression from integration
to interoperability. As companies increase their S&OP
competency, the focus is on data synchronization of
market data and the bi-directional orchestration of
plans market-to-market. (The focus is bi-directional
orchestration of price, mix and volume options from
the customer to the supplier).
The shift from an enterprise focus to a more mature
network model usually requires the reimplementation
of S&OP. The redeployment is necessary to use channel
data in demand planning and to build playbooks
to store and use what-if analysis. For this reason,
many companies are exploring the use of digital twin
modeling options. We highlight the fit of software
solutions to support this model transition in the
technology section of this report.
When viewed as a level of maturity, IBP is level three
of the five-level maturity model. Outside-in processes
focused on consumption, and market data will always
trump enterprise processes in driving value. The need for
outside-in processes increases with the unprecedented
volatility of the pandemic.
The first three steps of maturity shown in Figure 3 are a
progression of enterprise planning. The last two represent
the building of outside-in processes to deliver network
deployment. In the design of outside-in processes in
maturity levels four and five, the focus is on the use of
market data (consumption data from the market) and
the translation of plans to suppliers. The movement
from demand planning based on historical order data to
modeling consumption data requires a redeployment of
planning.
FIGURE 3. Overview of the S&OP Maturity Model Used in this Report
Business-planning Driven
Coordination of Plans
N
e
t
w
ork Focus Inside-O
u
t
N
e
t
work Focus Outside
-
I
n
Sales Driven
Match Demand
with Supply
Manufacturing Driven
Deliver a Feasible
Plan of Operations
Demand Driven
Sense and
Shape Demand
Market Driven
Orchestrate Demand
Market to Market
Greater Benefit
-Growth
-Resilience
-Efficiency

FIGURE 4. Comparison of Perceived S&OP Processes in 2019 versus 2016
Supply Chain Insights LLC Copyright © 2019, p. 10
Satisfaction is Declining
____________________________________________________________________
Source: Supply Chain Insights LLC, Sales & Operations Study (Mar-May, 2019)
Base: HAVE A S&OP PROCESS -- Total (n=107)
Q11. When compared to your peer companies, how would you rate the effectiveness of your [primary]
S&OP process? SCALE: 1=Not at all effective, 5=Extremely effective
Q13: When you compare your current state of S&OP, how does it compare to the process three years
ago? SCALE: 1=Not at all effective, 5=Much more effective
*NOTE: Respondents answered for the S&OP process with which they are personally most familiar
Extremely effective, 5%
Effective
30%
Neutral
44%
Not
effective
22%
Effectiveness of Primary S&OP Process*
35%
rate their
primary
S&OP
process as
Extremely effective,
34%
Effective
31%
Neutral
28%
Not effective, 8%
Comparison of current State of S& OP three
years ago
65%
rate their
current
state of
S&OP
Over the recent decade, S&OP effectiveness declined. Shown in
Figure 4 is the aggregate sentiment of business leaders on the
efficacy of S&OP processes in 2019 versus the performance
of the same peer group in 2016. The reason for degradation?
For some, the decline is due to shifts in business—increase in
supply chain complexity, globalization, mergers & acquisition,
and changes in business models-- but for most, it is the inability
to navigate the potholes and pitfalls of process evolution.
S&OP PRE-PANDEMIC
STATE
We are continually surprised by the number of clients
with flawed implementations. Successful S&OP
programs require training and alignment of executive
leadership. Change management is the linchpin.
Unless forced to act, organizations struggle to
define goals, processes, and measurements to
overcome the barriers of functional excellence.
Overcoming this challenge requires alignment and
leadership. External consultants cannot bridge a
gap in internal leadership.
11

The easiest way to alleviate this issue is the shift from
functional to cross-functional metrics.
The focus of this report is to give answers to pitfalls
and potholes. The most significant issues happen in
evolution after implementation. A pitfall is a trap or
hidden danger that is not easily recognized by the
team. In contrast, a pothole is an issue or a series
of events that drive a gradual process degradation.
Both are challenges for the S&OP leadership team.
Gradually, S&OP processes degrade based on the
potholes and pitfalls shown in Table 2.
Shown in Figure 5 are the gaps in initial
implementations. Despite the fact that over 90% of
manufacturing companies greater than 1B$ have
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), one of the main
issues is getting to data. The issues include data
governance, cleanliness, and latency. Tackle this issue
by putting a data guru from your organization on the team
and building a planning master database to manage the
important elements like lead times, conversion rates, cycle
times, alternate bill of materials, and location mapping.
Make data cleansing and rationalization an ongoing task
as part of the S&OP cycle.
The second largest gap is organizational alignment.
Politics and emotional issues undermine results. The
answer? Build a cross-functional guiding coalition.
FIGURE 5. Gaps in Initial Implementations
Most Common Challenge with S&OP Implementation
Is Getting to Right Data in Timely Fashion
____________________________________________________________________
Q28. Thinking about when your [former] S&OP process was first implemented, what were the challenges that your company encountered with the
implementation? Please select all that apply.
58%
54%
51%
43%
42%
42%
37%
36%
33%
28%
6%
6%
Difficulty getting to the right data in a timely fashion
Lack of support from other functions
Not having technologies that support the process
Lack of understanding and support from the…
Lack of clarity on how to make a decision
Lack of skilled resources
Issues with the role of finance and the budget
Poor execution of the S&OP plan
Lack of clarity of supply chain strategy and supply…
Lack of time to execute the process
Other
Don't know
Challenges with Initial S&OP Process Implementation
36% challenges on average
Most Common

POTHOLES PITFALLS
Degradation of Planning Engine Effectiveness Strategy Alignment
Training and Skill Dilution The Role of the Budget
Management of Planning Master Data Organizational Governance
Clarity of Process Definitions Process Discipline and Clarity of Roles
Shifts in Leadership Measurement Systems
TABLE 2. Commonalities and Differences Between Sales, Finance and Supply Chain Planning
Report Definitions:
• Bullwhip: Amplification and distortion of demand across functional silos.
• Demand Sensing: The translation of sales within markets with zero latency and bullwhip.
• Harmonization: The translation of data across functions for elements like eaches,
equivalent units, item nomenclature, and location data.
• Orchestration: Bi-directional trade-offs of functional alternatives to develop the best plan.
• Planning Master Data: The elements that form the basis of the planning output. This
includes alternate sourcing, cycle times, conversion rates, cost profile data, and lead
times.
• Synchronization: The bringing together of systems and processes operating with different
cycles and time horizons.
13

Until there is a vaccine or an effective treatment for COVID-19,
supply chain leaders face constant market disruption. The
market turbulence makes S&OP more critical and requires a
shift in traditional supply chain thinking, shifting the focus to
stages four and five of the S&OP maturity model shown in
Figure 3:
• Demand: In the pandemic, demand planning based on
order patterns adds more noise than value. However,
don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Consider
redeploying demand planning software based on the
modeling consumption data. In addition, shorten planning
cycles. Consider a shift in frequency--consider modeling
more frequently-- and analyze the value of the forecast
each period using the Forecast Value Added (FVA)
technique.
• Demand Sensing: Using consumption data, model
replenishment requirements in the slush period to update
Distribution Requirements Planning (DRP) solutions. Over-
write rules-based consumption from traditional technology
approaches from the tactical to operational time horizon
using the demand sensing logic.
• Digital Twin Modeling: Work with companies like
BlueCrux, Llamasoft, Logility, or OMP to continually
model to determine the best plan. Test the S&OP plan
for feasibility and trade-offs and educate your executive
team. Resources: Use in-region resources to manage
your S&OP program. Make this a factor in technology and
consultant selection. Don’t rely on cross-continental travel to
drive implementation or process refinement.
• Design for Remote Workers: Plan for the S&OP
processes to be conducted virtually. Focus on ease of
use and improved bandwidth to enable remote team
collaboration.
• Logistics: Plan for logistics to be a constraint. Air
shipments are three-to-four times the historical
cost, and capacity is often not available when
needed. The decline in commercial air traffic and
increased regulations add to the complexity. To
combat this issue, focus on getting good at planning
and building playbooks to model and prepare for
scenarios. Consider S&OP programs with major freight
forwarders to align on transportation requirements.
Use insights from Freight Forwarders to under border
friction and quarantine requirements.
• Network Design/Inventory Optimization: Design nodes
and inventory strategies to improve agility. Holistically
design and fine-tune the networks and inventory strategy
each period. Embrace inventory as a buffer.
• S&OP Alignment and Execution: Use new forms of
analytics in solutions like Aera Technology, Logility, and
Kinaxis to model S&OP execution and the alignment of
demand with finite resources.
• Supplier Data Sharing and Collaboration: In a similar
manner as logistics expect supplier outages from
manufacturing disruption. Share data frequently, and
build S&OP plans with critical suppliers. Use insights
from suppliers to improve agility strategies and align
value networks.
SHIFTS IN THE PANDEMIC

Driving to a goal requires a clear roadmap and shared
vision. Companies that quickly achieve S&OP excellence
have five characteristics: outside-in focus, ability to access
data rapidly, process balance, organizational alignment, and
close coupling of S&OP planning and execution cycles. When
organizations take a traditional approach to S&OP, they often
miss the organizational nuances of alignment, governance,
and balance. Reporting structures of the S&OP team to the
profit center manager helps to improve balance and clarifies
governance. S&OP should never report to a function without
P&L responsibility. In Figure 6, we share the current state of
S&OP balance.
EXAMPLES OF S&OP GOVERNANCE ISSUES:
A 35B$ Food and Beverage company deployed
thirty-three custom instances of S&OP with a
focus on budget compliance. As a result, the
organization met cost objectives, but failed in
the delivery of growth, inventory targets and
customer service. Five years later, no region is
clear on what good looks like in S&OP.
A 50B$ global chemical company worked with a
large consultant to deploy regional S&OP models.
Each region defined time horizons differently;
and as a result, the organization could not
roll-up S&OP for global decision making.
A 22B$ consumer products company
implemented a model of regional dependency.
Each region sourced products globally, but
the lack of supply reliability resulted in major
customer service gaps. The company lacked
a feasible supply plan because they were
only planning for segments of the plan.
WHAT DOES
GOOD LOOK
LIKE?
The process is out of
balance with an
emphasis on sales
and marketing
processes
Easily balancing plans horizontally
between the sales/marketing teams
and the operations teams
The process is
out of balance with
an emphasis on operations
(logistics, manufacturing, and
procurement)
More focused
on the S
21%
Balanced
between the
S and the OP
41%
More focused
on the OP
36%
Ability to Balance Their Primary S&OP Process
57%
out of balance
More than One Third Consider Their Primary S&OP
Process to Balance the “S” and “OP”
____________________________________________________________________
Q15. How would you rate your company’s ability to balance the “S” and the “OP” in the evolution of your [primary] S&OP process (even if you call it
something else)?
NOTE: Respondents answered for the S&OP process with which they are personally most familiar
FIGURE 6. Balance in S&OP
15

Greatest Alignment Gaps Are with Operations & IT,
Sales & Operations, Marketing & Finance, and
New Product Development & Distribution
78%
96% 94%
74%
88% 87%
79%
94%
48% 53% 48%
54%
39%
60%
70%
50%
64% 65%
59%
77%
30%
39% 35%
48%
-38% -36%
-24% -23% -23% -21% -21% -18% -18% -14% -13%
-7%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
New
Product
Dev't &
Distrib'n
Sales and
Operations
Manufact'g
&
Procuremt
Operations
& IT
Finance &
Operations
Sales &
Finance
Marketing
& Finance
Sales &
Marketing
Marketing
& IT
Finance &
IT
Sales and
IT
CSR
&
Operations
Team Alignment: Importance vs. Performance*
Importance Performance Gap (Perf - Impt)
Greatest Gaps Between
Importance and Performance
____________________________________________________________________
Q34. In your opinion, how important is it for each of the following pairs of teams to be aligned? SCALE: 1=Not at all important, 7=Extremely important
Q35. How aligned do you believe that these same pairs of teams actually are at your company? SCALE: 1=Not at all aligned, 7=Extremely aligned
*Showing those rating elements 5-7 on 7-point scale; CSR = Corporate social responsibility
FIGURE 7. Current State of Organizational Alignment

Traditional norms and paradigms force organizations to work
in silos. In mature S&OP deployments, companies break
functional thinking to change focus and drive improvement.
With maturity, the concentration is not on the “S” or the
“OP.” Instead, the focus is on the ampersand (&). Examples
of S&OP process work on the ampersand include reducing
product and service complexity, improving network design,
product rationalization, cost-to-serve analysis, and production
platform standardization.
Alignment improvement efforts include a focus on growth
with shared metrics/incentives definition along with continual
evaluation of complexity and network design. Inventory is a
sticky wicket: stock consists of both waste and buffer. The
aligned organization minimizes waste and designs buffers
with a focus on the form and function of inventory. The closer
the organization is aligned between commercial and
operational teams, the greater maturity. The In Figure 7, we
share the current state of the industry.
Organizational alignment and process balance go hand-
in-hand. When strategy efforts clearly define metrics
and goals, and there is executive alignment, gaps in
organizations disappear. However, over the last decade,
organizational alignment gaps became more significant, not
smaller. The reason? A focus on functional processes where
the commercial teams on growth and the operations teams
on cost create alignment issues.
Another factor of S&OP excellence is the tie of planning
to action. As shown in Figure 8, while 80% of companies
have an S&OP process, only one in two organizations
connects S&OP planning to S&OP execution. To maximize

results, supply chain planning needs to complete the cycle with a tie of planning to after-action reviews. Mature S&OP processes
manage the planning-to-execution cycle, making sure that there is a review of plan effectiveness each month.
The analysis of the plan requires analytics. To manage this cycle, companies need “what-if” analysis and technology that delivers
a feasible plan. Only 1/3 of companies with S&OP processes have these capabilities. The evolution of digital twin capabilities
offers promise in S&OP execution for companies more mature in process development.
in Insights LLC Copyright © 2019, p. 14
ore Than Half Report Primary S&OP Process
Is Executed at Least Most of the Time
____________________________________________________________________
Q16. After your [primary] S&OP process is generated, how well is it typically executed? Please pick
the one that describes it best.
NOTE: Respondents answered for the S&OP process with which they are personally most familiar
Not tied
to S&OP
7%
Hardly execute
17%
Execute
most of time
27%
Execute
nearly
always
13%
Monitor market
and adjust
22%
Tightly
synched to
operations
12%
Don't
know 1%
How Well Execute the Primary S&OP Process
51%
execute S&OP
process most of the
time or more
FIGURE 8. Respondent Assessment on the Completion of the Planning Cycle to S&OP Execution
17

S&OP process maturity does not just happen. It requires leadership, focus, and a multi-year roadmap to guide the evolution.
In Table 3, we share the maturity model to support the building of outside-in processes that are bi-directional to orchestrate
demand and supply. With S&OP maturity, modeling increases to manage volume, mix, and financial impacts.
DRIVING PROCESS
MATURITY
TABLE 3. Sales and Operations Maturity Model
MATURITY MODEL
STAGE 1
STAGE 2:
SALES DRIVEN
STAGE 3:
IBP
STAGE 4:
DEMAND DRIVEN
STAGE 5:
MARKET DRIVEN
ALIGNMENT Functional focus. Functional: A "S" and/
or "OP" focus. Lack of
alignment between the "S"
and the "OP."
Pieces of the organization
start to align, but there is
a lack of connection of the
process to strategy.
Understanding of trade-
offs and agreement to the
plan based on strategy.
Adapting the business
market-to-market with
trading partners (demand
and supply) through S&P.
GOAL Functional metrics. Balance demand and
supply.
Most cost-efficient plan. Maximize opportunity
by balancing customer
service growth and
inventory.
Maximize opportunity and
minimize risk balancing
growth, customer service,
Return on Invested
Capital, and inventory.
CAPABILITY Recognition of the need
for an S&OP process is
just not sure what to do.
Confusion on what is
demand management.
A clear understanding
of demand flows and
constraints.
Functional plans, but no
clear strategy.
Ability to model a feasible
plan in different units of
measure—dollars, units,
equivalent units.
Clear definition of
strategy.
What if capabilities
Mix modeling
Visibility of unit of
measure, volume and
currency impacts.
Alignment on “playbooks”
in the market.
MEASUREMENT A focus on functional
metrics with no clear
organizational metrics.
Organizational metrics
emerge to tie action
to strategy, but there
is tension between
functional and corporate
metrics.
Functional metrics start to
shift to reliability and the
corporation starts to align
cross-functional metrics
tied to strategy.
Balance of metric
performance, risk
mitigation, and
opportunity assessment
through what-if modeling.
Connection of the
balanced scorecard
across the organization
with a functional focus
to the minimization of
waste and improvement
or reliability.
EXECUTION The focus is on the
urgent. Planning is poorly
understood and may not
be valued.
Planning capabilities
start to emerge but they
operate in a silo not
connected to execution.
What-if capabilities
emerge, but they are not
connected to execution.
Playbooks based on what-
if analysis with a close
connection to execution.
The tactical S&OP plan is
closely tied to execution in
a closed loop.
REPORTING Functional reporting in
either sales or operations.
Reporting to the CFO or
the chief strategy officer.
Reporting through a
business unit center of
excellence to a senior
business leader.
Reporting through a
business unit center of
excellence to a senior
business leader.
Reports to a profit center
manager.

Organizations don’t easily align. The natural process orientation within organizations is a silo-based definition of efficiency.
Supply chains are complex non-linear systems. The cause and effect of demand, sourcing, and inventory decisions are not well-
understood cross-functionally requiring visualization.
In Figure 9, we show the typical gaps. Aligning without shared metrics and visualization of trade-offs is an impossible task
WHY IS S&OP SO HARD?
Managing Opportunities/Risk, and Managing Process Flow
Show Greatest Performance vs. Importance Gaps
70%
85% 88%
49%
72%
48% 49%
31%
49%
55%
22%
47%
33%
44%
-39% -36% -33%
-27% -25%
-15%
-5%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Run what-if
analyses to
determine
alternatives
Manage
opportunities and
risk analysis
Collaborate between
sales and
operations
Use technologies to
determine the most
profitable plan
Manage process
flow
Deliver role-based
views for
individuals across
the company
Deliver on corporate
social responsibility
goals
Importance vs. Performance on S&OP Elements
Importance Performance Gap (Perf - Impt)
Greatest Gaps Between
Importance and Performance
____________________________________________________________________
Q19. How important is it for your company to do each of the following? SCALE: 1=Not at all important, 7=Very important
Q20. How well does your company perform in each of these same areas? SCALE: 1=Poor, 7=Excellent, 0=Not applicable
Showing those rating elements 5-7 on 7-point scale
FIGURE 9. S&OP Capability Gaps
19

In the last decade, the technology market for S&OP
technologies emerged as a distinct and separate taxonomy
from supply chain planning. The first entrant in this new
taxonomy appeared in 2002.
The technology market for S&OP specific solutions is now
less than two decades old. There is confusion between
applications in the conventional planning market and the
need for S&OP planning. In the past five years, the influx
of solutions into the market created both opportunity and
uncertainty. The consolidation of the market for traditional
planning vendors created an opportunity for innovation from
new players. In this report, we outline the characteristics of
thirty-four technology providers.
Let’s start with the facts. Today, over 90% of companies
have a solution, and only one in two companies has satisfied
business users. Only 18% of business leaders can get to the
data that they need when they need it. Frustration abounds.
Most have purchased software, but remain dependent on
Excel spreadsheets. The track record is poor. What makes a
happy business user? We find five characteristics:
• Ability to Easily Get to Data. In an organization, there
are distinctly different needs for executive teams and
planning teams to use data. The most successful
organization design the data/analytics environment to
embrace the use of data by the entire organization.
• Fit. Alignment of the data model to business
requirements. Testing and evolution of the process
requirements. Only 7% of companies adequately test
solutions before purchase.
• Selection Criteria. Purchase based on business
requirements. Companies purchasing based on IT
standardization are significantly less satisfied.
• Culture. The selection of a technology provider with a
strong user group and ongoing value-added services.
• Evolution. Over time, the Technology Company
remains independent with consistent leadership.
Technology M&A is an Achilles heel for user
satisfaction.
In process refinement, there is always an over-arching
question on “integration.” There is a belief that purchase
from an ERP solution provider improves integration. Few
understand the fallacy of this argument propelled by ERP
providers and system integrators. Most companies have
not one, but more than four instances of ERP and four-
to-five supply chain planning technologies. We work with
several companies that operate more than a hundred ERP
solutions.
Advanced Planning System (APS) integration might
be more straightforward with a single instance of ERP,
but this is seldom the case. As a result, the simplistic
worldview of an APS solution sitting on the top of a single
ERP instance is not realistic.
Most planning systems miss the mark. While over 85% of
manufacturers deployed Advanced Planning Systems, over
90% of companies still depend on excel spreadsheets. The
use of spreadsheets is problematic in many ways. Excel
spreadsheets are woefully inadequate to model a complex,
non-linear system. As a result, the output– isolated,
SELECTING THE RIGHT
TECHNOLOGY

o9, and OM Partners. The Kinaxis interface scored
the highest in testing, but the data model was not a
good fit for the company. OMP had the depth and
breadth of the solution but did not score as high on
system usability. In contrast, o9 had an excellent user
interface but lacked the breadth of the solution for
the requirements. In any software selection, there are
trade-offs. This is why it is crucial to define decision
governance and selection criteria before engaging
the technology companies.
• Develop a Test Plan and Make a Final Decision
Based on Testing. Extremely long tail supply
chains require different techniques. Test demand
solutions based on backcasting and Coefficient of
Variation (COV) segmentation.
• Determine Scalability Requirements. Get clear. In
your documentation for solution providers, outline
the number of items, parallel usage by business
users, and time requirements of batch jobs.
• IT Standardization. To maximize business value in
S&OP, this is the last consideration. The discussion
of IT standardization focuses on IT budget
maximization versus business value. Without testing,
it is tough to determine the right trade-offs between
IT costs and business value. While the IT costs are
transparent and known, most companies have not
completed the testing to understand business value.
• Understand What-if and Collaboration Requirements.
“What-if Capabilities” is a primary driver of agility.
What-if optimization and business process simulation
disconnected, and out of sync with the business–spins
endlessly. The lack of adequate supply chain planning
systems drives maverick behavior adding to the
organizational change management issues.
The selection criteria, listed in the order of importance
to driving business value, is shared here:
• Engines. Get clear. What are you trying to model?
What is the best engine to model your business?
What are the data model requirements? The
requirements for S&OP modeling are industry-
specific, and the most critical determinant of
business value and user satisfaction. Before
engaging with the technology providers look hard at
your data and determine the model requirements.
Get clear on the needs and the problem that you
are trying to solve. For example, Kinaxis is the best
optimizer for material-centric supply chains with a
complex bill of materials. The right industries for
Kinaxis include A&D, Automotive, High-tech, and
Industrial Products. Modeling active ingredients for
pharmaceutical companies is also a fit. However,
the Kinaxis solution lacks constraint-based asset
modeling for the process industries of chemical,
consumer products, and food/beverage industries.
Similarly, for demand planning, understand the level
of intermittent demand, the characteristics of trade
promotions/rebates and price, and the impact of the
long tail.
• Define Solution Requirements Before Engaging
with Technology Providers. Stay grounded in the
discovery based on the prioritization of requirements.
Let me give you an example. In a recent sales
engagement, the company was considering Kinaxis,
21

are two distinctly different, but equally important techniques.
Define requirements for both. The strongest technologies for
above-the-line visualization are Anaplan, Kinaxis, Logility and
o9 Solutions.
• User Interface Requirements. Different business users
have different preferences. In testing, understand
business user preferences and have business users
score the user interface as a part of the pilot.
• Culture. The culture of the solution provider should
match that of the buyer. Only 14% of companies rank
themselves as innovators. Relationships matter. Today,
innovators are testing cognitive computing, artificial
intelligence, and open source technologies. The
majority of buyers are late adopters and focused on
more traditional solutions.
• Price. Focus on ROI. Enlist finance to baseline
business drivers and business opportunities. Before
getting started in technology discovery, know your
budget. Keep in mind that the prices of technologies
vary widely based on negotiation skills.
• System of Record. The average Company’s IT landscape
is complex; to keep these solutions synchronized, there
is a need for a system of record to drive visibility for

development of software providers.
• Focus on Building Capabilities. A mistake many
companies make is implementing technologies. Change
the focus to make technology an enabler, but not the end
state. Get definitive on the capabilities that you want to
build. Actively attack change management issues.
• Side-Step Shiny Objects—Fads and Hype. Stay focused
on building capabilities. Slowly advance based on
maturity.
• The Supply Chain Needs to be Real-time. One mistake
that companies make is asking for processes to
be real-time. While processes can be updated and
refined through real-time data, planning processes
are not, and should not be, real-time. A sole focus on
real-time creates a reactive response that throws the
supply chain out of balance. Instead, design planning
systems to operate at the speed of business with zero
latency. The focus only on real-time data introduces
RECOMMENDATIONS
In selecting a solution, here are some recommendations
:
• Avoid Technologies Built by Consultants. The worst
solutions on the market are those built by consultants.
The reason is simple: a consultant’s background does not
include product management and solution development.
• Build End-to-end: When I hear the words “end-to-end,” I
smile. I then ask the speaker to describe, “What is end-to-
end?” For most, the vision is a supplier to the factory or a
factory to a customer. Focus outside-in, starting with the
customer’s customer and map through the supply chain to
the supplier’s supplier. Think of demand as a river that runs
through the supply chain and align the buffers and assets to
market requirements.
• Don’t Waste Your Time. Avoid RFPs. Market RFPs for
S&OP solutions are largely a waste of time. Instead of an
RFP, carefully short-list a group of providers and give them
requirements. Focus on practical testing and relationship
SUMMARY
Under normal conditions, S&OP processes have compelling value, but the pandemic ups the ante. Build a capabilities roadmap and
carefully deploy technology with the goal in mind. Aggressively attack the change management issues to move the organization past
functional silos and inside-out thinking.
23

NAVIGATING
THE TECHNOLOGY
PROVIDER LANDSCAPE
With offices in Mountain View, CA, and Venture
Capital funding of over 85M$, the company has more
substantial domain expertise in analytics than supply
chain management. The focus is on building cloud-
based learning applications to move data quickly to
align corporations.
Industry Fit: Product-based companies seeking
to improve demand and supply matching through
pattern recognition and learning.
Strengths: Aera’s Cognitive Operating System™
leverages machine learning, natural language
processing, and enterprise domain expertise
to deliver quick results to improve operational
alignment. The Skill Builder interface, introduced in
2019, enables fast deployment on a cloud-based
release. The technology is ideal for S&OP execution.
Considerations: Aera is a compliment, but not a
substitute for planning technologies. The deployment
of Aera into core planning introduces nervousness
into the planning cycle.
The landscape of technology providers is confusing to most
buyers. To help, here we share the overviews of the thirty-one
solutions most commonly discussed in client interactions.
1. ADEXA
WWW.ADEXA.COM
COST: $$
Description: Founded in 1994 by Dr. Cyrus Hadavi,
currently CEO and Chairman of the Board, the
company focuses on supply chain modeling. Los
Angeles, CA, is the company’s headquarters. With
slightly more than 150 employees, Adexa has
international offices across Canada, Asia, Europe, the
Middle East, and Africa. Most client deployments are
in Asia and the United States.
Industry Fit: Strong in apparel and discrete
manufacturing assembly supply modeling.
Strengths: The Company is a pioneer in the
development of attribute-based forecasting
techniques and has deep supply modeling for
constraint-based planning for manufacturers.
Considerations: While the Company touts “AI” on its
website, Adexa’s focus is a traditional APS footprint.
There is early work on machine learning. With over
three decades of marketing and selling supply
chain software, the company struggles to grow. The
company is more reliable in building software than
marketing/sales and deployment.
2. AERA TECHNOLOGY
WWW.AERATECHNOLOGY.COM
COST: $$$$
Description: Founded in 2005 as FusionOps, Aera
Technology changed names in 2017. The company
currently operates with slightly over 300 employees.
Relative Solution Cost: While costs vary based
on negotiations and market conditions, the
solutions operate within pricing bands. These
costs reflect total cost: software, technology and
implementation.
$: Under $200,000
$$: $201,000-$500,000
$$$: $501,000-$1,000,000
$$$$: $1,001,000-$1,500,000
$$$$$: Greater than $1,501,000
25

Manufacturers
Strengths: Strength is with the individuals in the
firm. The team has strong modeling capabilities of
baseline demand based on exogenous data sets,
customer and product profiles.
Considerations: Antuit.ai is a newly launched company
with a few clients in North America. Consider Antuit.ai to
improve demand processes to augment outcomes, but
not to replace existing systems.
5. ARKIEVA
WWW.ARKIEVA.COM
COST: $$
Industry Fit: Chemical and Process Distributors
Description: The Company was founded in 1993 in
North America by ex-DuPont executives. Branded
initially as Supply Chain Consultants with product
branding of Zemeter, the company rebranded to
Arkieva in 2011. Strength in optimization and ideal
for a mid-sized process chemical company. Primarily
an engineering-based company, the organization is
stronger at building products than solution selling and
value delivery. The architecture lacks visualization
capabilities to be a strong ‘above the line’ solution
for companies higher than 2B$—limited “what-if
capabilities” and no demand sensing solution.
Strengths: Depth of optimization. Depth in inventory
management and tactical supply modeling. Stronger
at supply than demand modeling.
Considerations: Arkieva is a small company located
in Wilmington, DE, with a strategic relationship
with Solventure in Europe. Asian and European
offices opened in the past five years. Implements
most technology deployments, but implementation
methodologies are still evolving.
6. AVERCAST
WWW.AVERCAST.COM
COST: $
Description: When Demand Solutions sold to
Logility in 2007, the Demand Solutions co-founder
Gene Averill founded Avercast. Since then, Avercast
expanded to include twenty regional offices in 10
countries. In 2011, Avercast launched a cloud-based
demand management platform designed to help
3. ANAPLAN
WWW.ANAPLAN.COM
COST: $$$$$
Description: Anaplan is pioneering positioning as the
leader in connected planning. When it comes to supply
chain planning, Anaplan is an analytics wannabe.
Anaplan fundamentally lacks the understanding of
supply chain planning requirements. Formed and
funded by venture capitalists in 2011, the company
is now public with revenues higher than 340 Million.
Anaplan offers deep web-based visualization through
cloud-based analytics. This capability is useful for S&OP
meeting visualization and limited “what-if modeling.”
The demand for the product is high, and the primary
focus is to help the CFO connect financial insights
across functions. Deployments are primarily through
over 170 third-party consultants mostly lacking the
understanding of supply chain planning requirements.
Industry Fit: All
Strengths: Easy to use and deploy. The product is
ideal for “above-the-line” deployments for companies
larger than 5B$ in revenues seeking the need to
access data in disparate systems and improve
visualization.
Considerations: The product is so easy to deploy
and configure that many companies end up with
multiple Anaplan silos. Ironically, while the company
seeks to connect the enterprise, the lack of company
leadership and deployment methodologies leads to
disconnected, automated silos.
4. ANTUIT.AI
WWW.ANTUIT.AI
COST: $$$$
Description: Previously, a consulting company,
the team pivoted to building SaaS solutions
targeting forecasting and revenue growth in 2018.
management. The company focuses on unifying
the demand signal across the supply chain with an
emphasis on consumption-based demand sensing
planning using AI and machine learning. The
company is backed by Goldman Sachs with over
$50M investment.
Industry Fit: Consumer Products and Food/Beverage

of E3 opened up the market for Blue Ridge to offer
a cloud-based alternative. Located in Atlanta, the
company is regionally-focused, privately-held, and
small with less than 100 employees.
Industry Fit: Distribution-centric companies less than
1B$ in annual revenues.
Strengths: Combination of replenishment logic with
price automation to test demand shaping activities.
The technology is ideal for a small retailer/distributor
seeking an easy-to-use cloud-based solution for
S&OP.
Considerations: Deployments recommended for
organizations with less than five planners. It is not
recommended for constraint-based modeling or
organizations with global footprints.
9. BLUE YONDER (JDA)
WWW.BLUEYONDER.COM
COST: $$$$
Description: Blue Yonder (JDA) is an industry
consolidator. In 1985, JDA was a retail ERP
provider. Over the last two decades, the company
consolidated many technologies into its platform.
Notable acquisitions included Blue Yonder, E3,
i2 Technologies, Manugistics, and RedPrairie.
Previously debt-laden and struggling to absorb
numerous platforms and changing leadership
directions, the Blue Yonder development roadmap
over the past decade has had many starts and stops.
The business fundamentals focused on maximizing
the return on investment of company maintenance
revenues. The current company has more than
5000 employees, with annual revenues of more than
250$M. The Blue Yonder renaming in 2019 is an
attempt to breathe a breath of innovation into the
company.
Industry Fit: Retail, Manufacturers, and Distributors
Strengths: Breadth of the solution and employee
expertise in supply chain planning. Companies
currently using Blue Yonder have a great opportunity
to network with other companies using the solution.
In addition, the Company has a strong base of strong
system integrators. Sourcing strong Blue Yonder
talent is not an issue.
Considerations: The Company has been slow
small to mid-size distribution-centric manufacturers.
Industry Fit: Ideal for a small distribution-centric
manufacturing company (less than 1B$) seeking
a solution for demand management and inventory
replenishment. Private and relatively small with
under fifty employees.
Strengths: The solution depth is in demand
management to inventory modeling—ideal for a
team with one-to-two modelers seeking an easy to
deploy a solution.
Considerations: The solution is more robust in demand
than supply. The technology is not a fit for a company
larger than 1B$ with manufacturing or material
constraints in either process or discrete industries.
7. BLUECRUX
WWW.BLUECRUX.COM
COST: $$$
Description: Bluecrux’s roots are in consulting.
Privately held, the company, located in Belgium &
recently in the United States, has approximately 100
employees. Their solution, “Lights Out Planning”
introduced in 2017, uses machine learning to
understand patterns in supply chain master data
(cycles, lead times, and conversion rates) and align
planning engines to supply-side shifts.
Industry Fit: Cross-industry application
Strengths: Strong use of machine learning to
improve outcomes and a good fit for executive
meeting visualization. The company has deep what-
if modeling to aid in playbook discovery for S&OP
execution.
Considerations: Medium-sized European Company
with recently opened US offices. Should be
considered for above the line planning since the
solution lacks tactical planning capabilities for supply
and demand planning to generate a feasible plan.
8. BLUE RIDGE
WWW.BLUERIDGEGLOBAL.COM
COST: $$
Description: Blue Ridge’s cloud-native supply chain
solutions were launched in 2007 to combine a
data-driven replenishment engine along with price
optimization to improve distribution. JDA’s purchase
27

software deployment using remote/online capabilities
with a focus on 12-week go-live schedules.
Considerations: Supply-centric capabilities for tactical
supply planning and production scheduling is newer
with fewer references. The solution is more regional
than global with few trained system integrators.
12. DEMAND SOLUTIONS
WWW.DEMANDSOLUTIONS.COM
COST: $$
Description: Founded in 1985, Logility purchased
Demand Solutions in 2011, allowing the company
to maintain a standalone operation with a focus
on mid-market distribution-centric process-based
companies. Over the past five years, the company
focused on cloud-based delivery.
Industry Fit: Consumer nondurable manufacturers,
food/beverage companies and distribution-centric
supply chains for companies with annual revenues
less than 1B$
Strengths: Tried and true mid-market solution with
few bells and whistles. Stronger in demand than
supply, the company’s product strength is in demand
and inventory management.
Considerations: Demand Solutions is stronger in the
US and Europe than in Asia. The product is ideal for
teams with fewer than five planners but is not a fit for
a company with a larger planning team.
13. E2OPEN
WWW.E2OPEN.COM
COST: $$$$
Description: E2open is an industry consolidator
rolling up eleven technologies--including Amber
Road, ICON-SCM, Inttra, Steelwedge, Logistics.com,
Orchestra, Terra Technology, and Zyme—in the past
five years. More than 540M$ in annual revenues with
more than 2400 employees. The company is located
in Austin, TX, with small offices in Europe. After a
failed public presence on the financial markets with
multiple unprofitable quarters, Insights Venture
Partners purchased the company in 2015. In 2016,
the company returned to profitability.
Industry Fit: Cross-industry
Strengths: Strong demand planning and demand
to innovate and lags the market in adopting new
analytic techniques. The S&OP approaches mainly
build off of the acquired technologies. In addition,
the company lacks demand sensing capabilities and
innovation in S&OP execution.
10. BOARDWALKTECH
WWW.BOARDWALKTECH.COM
COST: $$
Description: Founded in 2004, Boardwalktech is
designed for the spreadsheet user. The company
uses a Digital Ledger platform adding security,
data integrity, integration, analytics, and predictive
capabilities while still using Excel or a web/mobile UI.
Based in Silicon Valley with less than 100 employees,
Boardwalktech is a hidden gem in the S&OP
landscape. Small and client-focused, the company
posted 4.9$M in revenues in 2019.
Industry Fit: All
Strengths: Easy to deploy (“lift and shift”) and
designed for companies seeking currently using a
spreadsheet-based solution. Ideal for a company just
starting on their S&OP journey.
Considerations: Structure contracts to avoid issues
with financial viability. In 2019, the company posted
its second consecutive year of reported losses. While
deployments are small requiring few support personnel,
the Company has no system integrator relationships.
11. DEMAND CASTER
WWW.DEMANDCASTER.COM
COST: $$
Description: DemandCaster is cloud-based supply
centric solution. It is designed to work the way
planners work. DemandCaster supports planning
through to the execution of orders in a single system.
The Company acquired by Plex Systems in 2016 with
a continued focus on building supply capabilities.
Industry Fit: Automotive, Food & Beverage,
Household Products, Industrial Components and
Distribution-centric supply chains for companies with
annual revenues less than 1B$
Strengths: Designed for small to mid-sized
companies seeking an easy to use solution. Stronger
in supply than demand. Professional services

Considerations: Enterra is a small company with
deep capabilities requiring a strong project manager
to guide the team through business process hurdles.
15. FUTURMASTER
WWW.FUTURMASTER.COM
COST: $$$
Description: Founded in France in 1994, FuturMaster
evolved a supply chain planning suite with a focus
on consumer-focused manufacturers. Currently,
the company has 30M$ in annual revenues with 70
employees. Headquartered in Europe with offices
in Asia, the company works through a series of
partners. Talent for United States projects creates
limitations on project scale and scope.
Industry Fit:
Strengths: The solution is a reliable traditional
demand modeling tool without a lot of bells and
whistles. It is suitable for teams of less than twenty-
five users seeking to deploy a conventional approach.
Considerations: With the evolution from a client-server
architecture, the company has a tough time competing
against some more contemporary user interfaces.
Stronger in demand and supply, reference users report
issues in the scalability and depth of the supply solution.
16. GAINSYSTEMS
WWW.GAINSYSTEMS.COM
COST: $$$
Description: GAINSystems, founded in 1971 by
William C. (Bill) Benton as an Operations Research
and Management Consulting firm, slowly built
solutions based on a stochastic optimization
approach for manufacturing, distribution, and
maintenance and repair operations. Currently, the
company is private, located in Chicago, IL, with small
offices in Europe and Australia. Today, there are less
than seventy employees. Customers are primarily
small Midwest distributors of service parts, discrete
assemblies, and home repair.
Industry Fit: Distributors of service parts, automotive
and appliance assemblies and do-it-yourself
suppliers to retail
Strengths: Small no-nonsense Company with
strength in inventory optimization and baseline
sensing capabilities with the E2open LDS and
MDS products, but the math is stronger than the
architecture. Deploy as an augmentation strategy
using alternative supply chain planning systems
of record. Lots of capabilities in-house, but the
organization is still evolving.
Considerations: The acquired suite is a strange mix
of discrete and process capabilities. The ICON-SCM
suite layered on top of Steelwedge provides S&OP
capabilities for a make-to-order or a configure-to-
order company. In contrast, the Terra Technology
demand sensing suite is a uniquely positioned
product for consumer process companies. The
original E2Open platform is primarily a procurement
B2B platform. While the E2Open platform drives
supplier collaboration, the S&OP functionality of
Steelwedge is not connected to the traditional
functionality. The company is still digesting
acquisitions, and the buyer should be wary of
inconsistent data models and look and feel. Due to
the confusion, buy based on existing capabilities, not
future product promises.
14. ENTERRA SOLUTIONS
WWW.ENTERRASOLUTIONS.COM
COST: $$$$$
Description: Enterra Solutions focuses on building
cognitive models for autonomous supply chains
and solving tough supply chain problems through
multi-dimensional math. With a history in serving
the department of defense, Enterra extended
its solution to solving supply chain problems in
2010. The models are extensible and flexible,
but require a system of record. Look at Enterra
as an augmentation strategy to drive greater
insights. The company, located in Princeton, NJ, is
primarily a North American company with less than
seventy employees and revenues less than 10M$.
Partnerships with Accenture and SAP.
Industry Fit: All industries
Strengths: Deep bench of analytic experts and data
scientists that love to solve hairy supply chain problems,
but can be limited by a lack of industry experience. The
company’s strength is in revenue optimization, baseline
forecasting, and demand sensing.
29

Partnerships with Chainalytics and TietoEVRY.
Industry Fit: Process-intensive manufacturers less
than 1B$
Strengths: Small Company focused on client
satisfaction with a strong, easy to deploy supply
chain scheduling capabilities. Flexibility in cloud-
based deployment makes the solution easy to use
for S&OP execution and closed-loop control between
planning and execution.
Considerations: Based in Europe, with most
implementations in the European continent may be a
limitation for companies seeking a global solution.
19. JOHN GALT
WWW..johngalt.com
Cost: $$
Description: John Galt is privately-held and located
in Dallas, TX, with offices in North America, Europe,
Australia and Africa. Founded in 1996, the company
has less than 100 employees. There are two primary
solutions: Atlas Planning Platform and ForecastX
Wizard (an Excel plug-in). The Atlas system is a
broader suite designed for the use by mid-size
manufacturing planning teams, while the ForecastX
technology focuses on helping the planner seeking to
use a spreadsheet with pre-defined data models.
Industry Fit: Distribution-centric companies less than 1B$
Strengths: The Atlas product is an easy to use
demand and inventory management software at a
moderate price point. The John Galt solution is a
value for companies only looking for distribution and
inventory management software.
Considerations: The Company is not a fit
for companies seeking supply management
optimization—aligning and resolving asset and
material constraints. The Company is stronger in
North America than other regions.
20. KINAXIS
WWW.kinaxis.com/en
Cost: $$$$
Description: Kinaxis grew over 27% in 2019 to
192M$ in revenue. An early leader in software as
a Service (SaaS), the company now drives over
60% of revenue from SaaS deployments (excluding
demand management. With a focus on client delivery,
Gains implements its solutions at most clients.
Considerations: Not a fit for manufacturing
optimization and what-if analysis of materials versus
assets. Best fit for a North American deployment.
The scale and scope of a global implementation of
a manufacturing client higher than 5B$ could tax the
limited resources.
17. INFOR
WWW.INFOR.COM
COST: $$$$$
Description: Infor is an industry aggregator rolling
up over thirty supply chain solutions, this includes
Baan, Fygir, Marcom, Fygir, GTNexus, Predictix, and
SSA Global. Solution consolidation served as the
foundation to build the Infor S&OP product. With an
extensive focus on usability, the S&OP solution is
easier to use today than a decade ago but lacks the
depth of modeling of competitors.
Industry Fit: All industries
Strengths: Infor stretches over many industries with
many assets. Companies currently on the INFOR
platform can upgrade to the INFOR S&OP product
easily. The global reach of the products coupled with
investment in the user interface makes it an ideal
system of record.
Considerations: With a lot of consolidation comes a
plethora of assets, and as a result, there is almost no
problem that Infor cannot solve. The problem is that
many of the developers and knowledge sources of
acquired solutions are no longer with the company.
The company, while global, lacks depth in supply
chain understanding and experience.
18. I-PLAN
WWW.IPLANWORLD.COM
COST: $$
Descriptive: Small cloud-based Company with a
comprehensive suite of products for managing
supply and demand matching. With fewer than
twenty-five employees and global revenues of less
than 5M$, the founders are very hands-on in the
business focused on client success. The solution
is stronger in the areas of supply than demand.

demand management solution.
Industry Fit: All
Strengths: The acquisition of OPEX Analytics
provides a deep bench of data science talent.
Over time the pooling of data science with
network design modelers is a pathway to planning
innovation. Short term, the company is investing in
a new no-code app publishing platform to enable
the deployment of solutions built on top of their
data model and algorithms. When it comes to
S&OP, consider LLamasoft a partner to improve
capabilities in inventory analysis, capacity utilization,
logistics planning, network design, and demand
sensing.
Considerations: LLamasoft does not sell an off-
the-shelf solution for Sales & Operations Planning
(S&OP), but provides enrichment analysis to fine-
tune the network and align network strategies. The
company’s work in demand management is new
and evolving, but promising.
22. LOGILITY
WWW.LOGILITY.COM
COST: $$$$
Description: Logility is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
American Software. The company has a three-tier
operating and branding structure. (Demand Solutions
operates as a separate brand.) Two thousand
nineteen revenues were 109M$: software sales
(cloud-based and subscription licensing) represented
25% of revenues, while maintenance revenues were
42% of sales. The Logility S&OP technology is the
best fit for companies between 1-5B$ with a focus
on American markets. Apparel companies can
benefit from the attribute-based planning capabilities
of new product profile planning, while distribution-
centric companies can benefit from the depth of the
company’s inventory optimization software.
Industry Fit: Apparel, Household Nondurable, Food/
Beverage
Strengths: The Logility product strength is in tactical
planning. The adoption of the Halo analytics platform
dramatically improves the user interface and the
“what-if” capabilities of the solution. Logility also
purchased Optiant in 2011, and the technology is still
the related professional services, which comprise
another 18% of revenue). With more than 900
employees , the company operates globally with
strong partnerships with Accenture and Genpact.
Industry Fit: Material-centric industries in make-to-
order and configure-to-order industries. The company
is also a good fit for the pharmaceutical industry in
the management of active ingredient constraints.
The solution is not a good fit for asset-intensive
companies in consumer nondurable, chemical, food/
beverage, and personal products. With the recent
acquisition of Rubikloud, Kinaxis may enter the
enterprise retail market for demand planning.
Strengths: The solution user interface gets high
marks from business users. The in-memory model
allows the synchronization of data across planners
and provides a sharing platform for “what-if analysis.”
Planners love the fact that they do not have to wait
for batch process outputs. The solution is stronger
in material planning than demand or inventory
management.
Considerations: Kinaxis is not a deep optimizer
is not been a good fit for an asset-intensive
company balancing manufacturing constraints. In
companies that are asset constrained or requiring
deep optimization, Kinaxis delivers “an above the
line” visualization capability to help executives see
trade-offs. Kinaxis implementation resources are
a constraint. The company’s acquisition of a long-
term partner in India and growing partnerships with
experienced implementation partners in other regions
demonstrate a growing network across other regions.
21. LLAMASOFT
WWW.LLAMASOFT.COM
COST: $$$$
Description: With revenues higher than 70M$,
and over 700 employees, the company is driving a
growth strategy to expand the company’s positioning
past network design into the broader supply chain
planning and analytics market. This strategy included
the acquisition of OPEX Analytics in 2019. Relevant
solutions for the S&OP process beyond network
design is the depth of inventory optimization analysis
technologies, and the newer schema on read
31

centers in the UK and Czech Republic with sales
offices in the UK . In 2019, the company opened a
US office. Over the past five years, with the rise in
interest in DDMRP, the company scaled up for global
deployments. The company is private with less than
50 employees
Industry Fit: Material-centric manufacturers
Strengths: O8 is the most robust deployment of
Demand-Driven Material Requirements Planning
(DDMRP) on the market and the solution is easy to
deploy. Cloud-based and easy to use, the solution
is designed for the planner attempting to translate
demand to a supply base. The company has strong
references that report high satisfaction with the
O8’s approach to deployment. O8 has a strong
relationship with Smart Chain in the UK.
Considerations: DDMRP is a fit for a limited
market. It is not a strong solution for process-based
companies with asset utilization constraints. The
Company presence is limited in the US.
25. O9 SOLUTIONS
WWW.O9SOLUTIONS.COM
COST: $$$$
Description: Founded in 2009, o9’s solution is ideally
suited for tactical S&OP process management.
The Graph-based technology platform makes
deployment/implementation more straightforward
but does require greater clarity on solution design
from the leadership team to ensure success. The
company has 592 employees with revenues of $70M.
Industry Fit: Cross-industry
Strengths: o9 is a powerful visualization technology
to guide executive meetings and streamline
discussions. The flexibility of the technology is a two-
edged sword: it is great if the company is clear on
how to deploy the technology, but a struggle if there
is a lack of deployment clarity.
Considerations: The solution, while strong for
automating the executive meeting cycle, is not suitable
for building a constraint-based feasible plan. The
solution, while focused on revenue management/
promotion planning, also is not as good at market
sensing as E2open or Enterra Solutions.
the most robust inventory management technology
to analyze the form and function of inventory and
establish push/pull decoupling points.
Considerations: The Company’s solution is more
robust in demand than supply modeling. The
solution is both comprehensive and narrow: many
modules with less depth than competitor solutions
in supply chain execution. As a result, the Logility
solution is not a good fit for S&OP execution. The
company is more robust in the Americas than in
Europe and only recently accelerated Software as a
Service (SaaS) deployments.
23. MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES
WWW>MANHATTANASSOCIATES.COM
COST: $$$$
Description: Manhattan is the market leader in retail
supply chain execution with strength in warehouse
management. The Company acquired Evant in
2005. This acquisition—deeply rooted in distribution
planning—is the foundation of the current solution for
S&OP. The functionality for retail planning overlays
the Manhattan retail planning solution.
Industry Fit: Retail and Wholesale Distribution
Strengths: The Company is a market leader in
supply chain management. Conservative and cash-
rich, it is financially sound and driven by customer
satisfaction. The solution is solid for demand
planning to inventory management, but lacks of the
depth of Logility (Optiant), LLamasoft, or ToolsGroup.
The S&OP functionality is ideal for existing
clients wanting better visualization for executive
visualization. The solution has global presence.
Opportunities: Expensive and slow-moving,
Manhattan is the ideal choice for a supply chain late
adopter not looking for many bells and whistles or
leading-edge innovation.
24. O8SUPPLYCHAIN
(PREVIOUSLY ORCHESTR8)
WWW:O8SUPPLYCHAIN.COM
COST: $$$
Description: The Company founded in 2002,
rebranded in 2019. With a strong presence in
Europe, the company operates development

satisfied in quantitative surveys than competitive
offerings. The Demantra acquisition brought Oracle
deep capabilities that have been under-used both
by Oracle and the market. The use of the Oracle
forecasting tool requires a strong understanding
of demand management and clean data: both are
an issue for most companies. The Oracle demand
management solution is a better fit for process
industries than discrete manufacturers. The supply
software is based on the Numetrix acquisition of
JDE. The solution re-writes are problematic and a
better fit for discrete manufacturers.
28. OPTIMITY
WWW>OPTIMITYSOFTWARE.COM
COST: $$
Description: A powerful and easy to use cloud-
based solution designed for small and mid-
market companies in food/beverage, process
manufacturing and distribution industries. and
process chemical industries. The company, based
in Australia, entered the US market in 2018, and is
stronger in software deployment than marketing
and sales.
Industry Fit: Small and Medium-sized Process
Manufacturers
Strengths: The solution is easy to use and is one of
the few solutions to enable process manufacturers to
build a feasible supply plan and push it to production
planning, enabling production schedule adherence in
S&OP execution. The supply solution is stronger than
the demand, but adequate for the company seeking
an easy-to-use solution to translate market demand
into manufacturing. Great value for the investment.
Considerations: The Company is relatively small and
growing. The solution is the most suitable for Infor,
SAP and Microsoft ERP architectures. The company
is stronger in Europe and Asia/Australia with a quickly
growing market presence in the United States.
29. QAD DYNASYS
WWW.DYS.COM
COST: $$$
Description: QAD DynaSys, a division of QAD,
specializes in the development and deployment
26. OMP
WWW.OMP.COM
COST: $$$$
Description: Founded in 1985, OMP’s approach to the
market is rooted in deep optimization. Headquartered
in Belgium, the company slowly built global reach
to deliver revenues of 70M$. Now 600 employees
globally, the company implements solutions at most
clients with a focus on value-based delivery.
Industry Fit: Process industries, including chemical,
metals, mining, household nondurables, personal
products, and food/beverage.
Strengths: Branded under the Unison Planning
product suite, the company sells the most in-
depth planning software for supply planning and
production scheduling. Companies deploying OMP
are statistically more satisfied with S&OP supply
modeling than competitive solutions.
Considerations: Stronger in supply than demand, the
products for demand sensing and demand planning
have few deployments. The company is slow to
deploy Software as a Service (SaaS) solutions, and
business users may struggle with the complexity
of the interface. Not a strong solution for S&OP
execution.
27. ORACLE
WWW.ORACLE.COM/INDEX.HTML
COST: $$$$$
Description: Oracle revenue for the twelve months
ending May 31, 2020 was $39.1B, a 1.1% decline
year-over-year. The company is global with over
130,000 employees and a strong focus on cloud-
based delivery. The company recently announced
cloud-based deployment of S&OP in nine months.
Industry Fit: All
Strengths: The Oracle solution is rich in functionality,
and for a company recently deploying Oracle ERP,
the solution may be a good fit. The cloud-based
deployment along with the analytics capabilities
makes this a strong and sound technological
solution.
Considerations: While the Oracle solution checks
many boxes in functionality, the solution is klunky
and hard to use with business users significantly less
33

demand planning, and there is no solution for supply
planning, S&OP execution, and “what-if” modeling.
Primarily an analytics company, the company lacks
strong supply chain management expertise.
31. SAP
WWW.SAP.COM/INDEX.HTML
COST: $$$$$
Description: SAP, with the leading market share
in supply chain planning, offers some of the most
challenging products to deploy and use. The SAP
IBP solution on HANA is replacing the SAP APO
suite. This migration started at the start of 2011
with a focus on phasing out APO deployments by
2025. Business user acceptance is mixed. The
SAP IBP solution is easier to use than APO but
often misses the mark on modeling capabilities.
Also, the SAP CIF interface with the SAP IBP
solution is no longer a differentiator.
Industry Fit: All
Strengths: Global footprint with strong
technology backbone for managing transactions
and integration, SAP when clear on software
requirements writes the world’s best code.
Reference client report mixed reviews.
Initial implementations required substantial
customization with elongation of calendars and
budgets, but by complying with standardization
mandates, the teams were able to automate their
S&OP processes.
Considerations: The SAP solution is expensive
and 30-40% longer to deploy. Most deployments
require customized solutions increasing costs and
risks of implementation. With a robust consulting
base, SAP is well-known by system integrators,
most getting a commission on selling and
deploying the SAP solution.
32. SCA TECHNOLOGIES
WWW.SCATECH.COM
COST: $$$
Description: SCA Technology is a small
and focused solution designed to help food
manufacturers manage reverse bill of material
S&OP processes. With a strong customer in
of S&OP software for manufacturers, distributors
and wholesalers. The company started building
supply chain planning in 1985 and offers over 35
years of experience in supply chain planning. With
headquarters located in France, the company is
stronger in Europe than in the United States.
Industry Fit: Discrete manufacturing
Strengths: The Companies solutions are a good
fit for the traditional buyer with a QAD backbone.
If in Europe, QAD DynaSys offers a strong bench
of talented professionals. Stronger in supply than
demand, the QAD DynaSys solution has all of the
required functionality but few bells and whistles
(trade promotion software, baseline lift modeling,
DDMRP, translation of the supply plan into
manufacturing scheduling or a digital twin).
Considerations: A solid partner in the supply chain
space with a dependable solution, but moves slowly
and deliberately under the QAD umbrella. Stronger in
Europe than in North America.
30. SAS
WWW.SAS.COM/EN_US/HOME.HTML
COST:$$$$$
Description: Headquartered in Cary North Carolina
in the United States, SAS is a global company
with over 15,000 employees posting more than
3B$ in annual revenues. With a deep background
in optimization and analytics, the company has
multiple supply chain solutions to augment
S&OP but lacks a full-suite of products for S&OP
deployment.
Industry Fit: Retail, Apparel, Household
Nondurables, Food/Beverages
Strengths: SAS solutions designed for the more
experienced demand management team provides
in-depth analysis of market trends. With solutions
in revenue management, assortment planning, and
demand management, the SAS solution aids the
study of baseline demand and the rationalization
of demand-shaping activities. The company also
has an inventory management solution, but it is
seldom deployed.
Considerations: The solution is only for the mature
user. The interface requires a deep understanding of

distribution. Subsequent advancements in
functionality have improved the company’s
coverage of consumer goods, discrete
manufacturing, and retail-specific needs.
Deployments are stronger in Europe but growing in
North America. With the investment by Accel-KKR
in 2018, turnover in the company accelerated. The
solution is not a fit for global manufacturers, but is
an ideal optimizer to deepen capabilities of other
solutions in the areas of demand sensing and
inventory optimization.
McDonalds, the company specializes in helping to
drive quick answers for perishable products based
not only on volume, but also on price.
Industry Fit: Food manufacturers
Strengths: Small and focused company located
in the United States with a team of strong data
scientists to orchestrate volume/price trade-offs
of reverse bill of material decisions for providers of
fresh products (produce, dairy or protein). H3
Considerations: A small niche provider serving a
small, but important market. A better fit for North
American providers than other continents.
33. TOOLSGROUP
WWW.TOOLSGROUP.COM
COST: $$$$
Description: ToolsGroup, incorporated in 1993,
has its US headquarters in Boston, MA with offices
in LATAM and Europe. The company’s strength is
demand forecasting and inventory optimization for
distribution-centric companies with intermittent
demand. The company started work on Machine
Learning for inventory optimization in 2018.
With global operations and a strong footprint in
Europe and North America, the team serves other
markets through a network of regional distribution
partners. As a result, the company is a better fit
regional versus a global company. The ToolsGroup
organization is less than 200 employees with R&D
offices in Italy.
Industry Fit: Distribution-centric industries
including consumer Goods, Food & Beverage, and
Wholesale Distribution.
Strengths: A strong solution for demand
forecasting & planning, demand sensing, inventory
optimization and replenishment planning. The
solution lacks manufacturing capabilities and
should be deployed only in companies that
are distribution-centric. The product is named
Service Optimizer 99+ (SO99+) with probabilistic
forecasting ideal for long-tail demand patterns.
ToolsGroup offers a strong demand sensing and
inventory capabilities.
Considerations: The solution began as an
optimizer for aftermarket parts and wholesale
35

Here we share insights on demographics from the
supporting quantitative study. The participants in this
research answered the surveys of their own free will.
There was no incentive to drive an improved response
rate. LinkedIn followers composed the research panel.
The names of the respondents—both individuals and
companies participating in the study--are held in
confidence. Here we share the demographics from the
analysis to help the readers of this report gain a better
perspective on the results. In this section, we share
the demographics and additional charts to help the
reader to understand the research.
APPENDIX
FIGURE A. Respondent by Company Type

84% of Companies Have an S&OP Process
____________________________________________________________________
Q9r1: How many distinct S&OP processes does your company currently have?
NUMERIC RESPONSE.
One
27%
Two
14%
Three
16%
Four
9%
Five+
19%
Don't know
15%
Number of Distinct S&OP Processes
7 Processes on average
58% have Two+
S&OP Processes
S&OP Process
Definition:
A tactical planning
process to forecast sales
and plan operations.
FIGURE B. Number of S&OP Processes of Respondents
37

Readers may gain added value by accessing previously
published reports on the SUPPLY CHAIN INSIGHTS
WEBSITE:
RETHINKING SUPPLY CHAIN ANALYTICS
INSIGHTS ON SUPPLY CHAIN FINANCE
PUTTING TOGETHER THE PIECES:
TECHNOLOGY GUIDE TO S&OP SELECTION
SALES AND OPERATIONS PLANNING:
STATE OF THE UNION
THREE TECHNIQUES TO IMPROVE
ORGANIZATIONAL ALIGNMENT
WHY IS S&OP SO HARD?
OTHER REPORTS
IN THIS SERIES

About Supply Chain Insights LLC
Founded in February 2012, Supply Chain Insights LLC delivers independent,
actionable, and objective advice for supply chain leaders. The company is dedicated
to research with the goal of helping companies gain first-mover advantage.
About Lora Cecere
Lora Cecere (twitter ID @lcecere) is the Founder of Supply Chain Insights LLC and
is the author of popular enterprise software blog Supply Chain Shaman currently
read by over 300,000 supply chain professionals. She writes as a Linkedin Influencer
and is a contributor for Forbes. Lora is an author of nine books including Bricks
Matter in 2012 and Metrics that Matter in 2014.
Founded in February 20
The Company’s mission
chain leaders. If you n
corporate performance,
goal is to help leaders u
matter.
About Lora
Lora
the a
by 15
is a a
Matte
Sham
Chai
Shaman’s Journal 2015
published in June 2016
With over 14 years as a
Group and now as the
worked with over 600 c
evolution of supply chai
seeking first mover adv
7 Dart Court Manor
Hanover, PA 17331
Email: regina.denman@supplychaininsights.com
info@supplychaininsights.com
Phone: O: +1 207.521.9176
M: +1 617.372.6921
Fax: 866-466-3350

Sales and Operations Planning: A Guide for the Supply Chain Leader

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Sales and Operations Planning: A Guide for the Supply Chain Leader

Similaire à Sales and Operations Planning: A Guide for the Supply Chain Leader (20)

Plus de Lora Cecere

Plus de Lora Cecere (20)

Dernier

Dernier (7)

Sales and Operations Planning: A Guide for the Supply Chain Leader