I frequently get calls from people who have been looking at supply chain planning software
for months and cannot make a decision. They ask me, "Which vendor should I choose?" I never
make the decision for them. Instead, I facilitate a discovery process.
When it comes to selecting the right supply chain planning software, buyers really should
base their decision on whether the engine and the data model fit their particular operation.
Unfortunately, many find it difficult to make this determination. That's because most technology
vendor presentations sound alike, and the buyers' business teams cannot determine the important
differences from demos.
So what's my recommendation? Selection teams need to adopt former U.S. President Ronald
Reagan's slogan, "Trust, but verify." They need to ask software companies to demonstrate the proof
of their claims.
How to verify
How do you get this verification? I recommend inviting your most promising
technology providers to participate in a proof of concept. In other words, hold
a series of "bake-offs" that tests the different software solutions against your
particular use cases. Carefully provide the candidates with your requirements,
and ensure that your team is clear and in alignment on what the success
criteria will be.
Here are some suggestions for testing specific supply chain planning modules:
Forecasting/demand planning. Take four consecutive years of data and give
the technology providers the prior years' data. For example, provide the vendors with
monthly (or weekly) shipment and order data for 2012-2016, but do not share the data
from 2017. Be sure to divide the data into demand flows, such as new product launches,
trade promotions, line extensions, and seasonal builds. Also communicate the associated
demand streams, year-over-year. Next, ask the technology providers to load the data into
their engines and deliver what they believe is the forecast for 2017. Then calculate the
error and bias for each of the demand streams. Pay close attention to how well the
software's forecast or plan performed on items in the "long tail" (products that sell
in small quantities).
Production planning. Take a year of orders and share them with the software vendors.
Give them the characteristics of changeovers, constraints, and cycle planning, and ask them to
provide you with a sample production plan. Pay close attention to the details of the production
schedule plan and understand what drives schedule attainment. Evaluate the impact of the production
schedule output on cycle stock, and make a comparison to the cycle-stock requirements of your company's
prior year.
Transportation planning. Give the technology providers a year of orders along with
your route assignments and pooling specifications. Ask them to provide you with a set of sample
plans. Look for capabilities associated with load assignments, pooling, continuous moves, and
backhaul definitions. Compare the impact of each software program's plan on cost.
The unfortunate news is that few companies do this type of testing. I believe that this lack of
testing is one of the reasons why software satisfaction is so low. While there is a nominal fee
and a requirement of time and energy, performing such tests makes a difference in the end.
Five more recommendations
In addition to testing, I have five more recommendations for companies looking to purchase a
new supply chain planning suite. These suggestions are based on my 20 years of following this market.
Triangulate the market. Triangulation refers to using more than one research method in order
to eliminate as much bias as possible. Technology vendors usually supply only positive references. To
get a more accurate assessment of the technology's capabilities, you need to go beyond the salesperson's
references and try to find some along the entire spectrum—the good, the bad, and the neutral. You can
learn from all three. I know of no software where every implementation was positive. Rather than seek
perfection, the question the buyer should ask is, "What is the best fit for my company?"
Look for deployments in like industries. While strategic network design technologies
can be deployed across different types of industries, the more operational technologies, like
demand sensing, production planning, deployment, transportation planning, and material planning,
are very industry-specific. Do not try to cross the lines and apply one of these solutions that
was developed for application outside of your industry.
Know that an 80-percent "fit" is not good enough. Many times software sales teams
want to gloss over the details of optimization, stating that software that works effectively
for 80 percent of your processes is good enough. To drive business results, however, data model
"fit" and engine design are more important than software integration. In the implementation of
supply chain planning, integration is the easy part. Business-process optimization is the more
difficult and critical element. Test and verify that the technology you're considering can do
the job.
Beware of "we don't have it now, but we can build it for you." Often if desired
capabilities are not already included in the software, a vendor will claim that it can develop
them for you. However, I have found that building new software generally takes nine to 16 months,
and that companies are seldom satisfied with the results. In my 20 years as an analyst, I have
only seen two cases where this type of co-development was successful. Avoid one-off software efforts.
Be skeptical of software system integrators' recommendations. System integrators usually
get a commission on the sale of the software. They are often not a neutral party. Ask your system
integrator for details on its arrangement with the software provider.
In my experience, a little bit of healthy skepticism and some rigorous testing can go a
long way toward making sure you don't end up like many supply chain software users: dissatisfied with
your implementation.
Benefits for Amazon's customers--who include marketplace retailers and logistics services customers, as well as companies who use its Amazon Web Services (AWS) platform and the e-commerce shoppers who buy goods on the website--will include generative AI (Gen AI) solutions that offer real-world value, the company said.
The launch is based on “Amazon Nova,” the company’s new generation of foundation models, the company said in a blog post. Data scientists use foundation models (FMs) to develop machine learning (ML) platforms more quickly than starting from scratch, allowing them to create artificial intelligence applications capable of performing a wide variety of general tasks, since they were trained on a broad spectrum of generalized data, Amazon says.
The new models are integrated with Amazon Bedrock, a managed service that makes FMs from AI companies and Amazon available for use through a single API. Using Amazon Bedrock, customers can experiment with and evaluate Amazon Nova models, as well as other FMs, to determine the best model for an application.
Calling the launch “the next step in our AI journey,” the company says Amazon Nova has the ability to process text, image, and video as prompts, so customers can use Amazon Nova-powered generative AI applications to understand videos, charts, and documents, or to generate videos and other multimedia content.
“Inside Amazon, we have about 1,000 Gen AI applications in motion, and we’ve had a bird’s-eye view of what application builders are still grappling with,” Rohit Prasad, SVP of Amazon Artificial General Intelligence, said in a release. “Our new Amazon Nova models are intended to help with these challenges for internal and external builders, and provide compelling intelligence and content generation while also delivering meaningful progress on latency, cost-effectiveness, customization, information grounding, and agentic capabilities.”
The new Amazon Nova models available in Amazon Bedrock include:
Amazon Nova Micro, a text-only model that delivers the lowest latency responses at very low cost.
Amazon Nova Lite, a very low-cost multimodal model that is lightning fast for processing image, video, and text inputs.
Amazon Nova Pro, a highly capable multimodal model with the best combination of accuracy, speed, and cost for a wide range of tasks.
Amazon Nova Premier, the most capable of Amazon’s multimodal models for complex reasoning tasks and for use as the best teacher for distilling custom models
Amazon Nova Canvas, a state-of-the-art image generation model.
Amazon Nova Reel, a state-of-the-art video generation model that can transform a single image input into a brief video with the prompt: dolly forward.
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.
Grocers and retailers are struggling to get their systems back online just before the winter holiday peak, following a software hack that hit the supply chain software provider Blue Yonder this week.
The ransomware attack is snarling inventory distribution patterns because of its impact on systems such as the employee scheduling system for coffee stalwart Starbucks, according to a published report. Scottsdale, Arizona-based Blue Yonder provides a wide range of supply chain software, including warehouse management system (WMS), transportation management system (TMS), order management and commerce, network and control tower, returns management, and others.
Blue Yonder today acknowledged the disruptions, saying they were the result of a ransomware incident affecting its managed services hosted environment. The company has established a dedicated cybersecurity incident update webpage to communicate its recovery progress, but it had not been updated for nearly two days as of Tuesday afternoon. “Since learning of the incident, the Blue Yonder team has been working diligently together with external cybersecurity firms to make progress in their recovery process. We have implemented several defensive and forensic protocols,” a Blue Yonder spokesperson said in an email.
The timing of the attack suggests that hackers may have targeted Blue Yonder in a calculated attack based on the upcoming Thanksgiving break, since many U.S. organizations downsize their security staffing on holidays and weekends, according to a statement from Dan Lattimer, VP of Semperis, a New Jersey-based computer and network security firm.
“While details on the specifics of the Blue Yonder attack are scant, it is yet another reminder how damaging supply chain disruptions become when suppliers are taken offline. Kudos to Blue Yonder for dealing with this cyberattack head on but we still don’t know how far reaching the business disruptions will be in the UK, U.S. and other countries,” Lattimer said. “Now is time for organizations to fight back against threat actors. Deciding whether or not to pay a ransom is a personal decision that each company has to make, but paying emboldens threat actors and throws more fuel onto an already burning inferno. Simply, it doesn’t pay-to-pay,” he said.
The incident closely followed an unrelated cybersecurity issue at the grocery giant Ahold Delhaize, which has been recovering from impacts to the Stop & Shop chain that it across the U.S. Northeast region. In a statement apologizing to customers for the inconvenience of the cybersecurity issue, Netherlands-based Ahold Delhaize said its top priority is the security of its customers, associates and partners, and that the company’s internal IT security staff was working with external cybersecurity experts and law enforcement to speed recovery. “Our teams are taking steps to assess and mitigate the issue. This includes taking some systems offline to help protect them. This issue and subsequent mitigating actions have affected certain Ahold Delhaize USA brands and services including a number of pharmacies and certain e-commerce operations,” the company said.
Editor's note:This article was revised on November 27 to indicate that the cybersecurity issue at Ahold Delhaize was unrelated to the Blue Yonder hack.