The impact of COVID-19 showed that traditional sales and operations planning (S&OP) may not be able to keep pace with today’s dynamic changes. Should we abandon S&OP altogether—or could adding a robust sales and operations execution (S&OE) process save the day?
From health care distribution and e-commerce fulfillment to food service, auto production, and beyond, the relentless onslaught of COVID-19 laid bare weaknesses across almost every industry—and the supply chain was spared no mercy.
The extreme environment, intensified by the emergence of the omicron coronavirus variant, has exposed existing faults across three core areas, requiring supply chain organizations to respond to supply and demand challenges most were unprepared for:
1. Supply chain tie-ups that delayed production and deliveries forced a staggering spike in allocation and trade-off decisions that needed to be made quickly. This overwhelmed many companies’ planning processes, especially those that assumed steady availability of supply.
2. At the same time, channel shifts—for example, the dramatic increase in business-to-consumer e-commerce—forced modifications to product mix and requirements, catching many companies by surprise and leaving them shocked by how poorly they were able to react and respond.
3. Lastly, the extended supply chainsdeveloped over the last several decades fell short when it came to agility, which prompted some companies to revisit the concept of reshoring.
As we (hopefully) begin to emerge from the worst of the pandemic, these and other pandemic-related challenges are leading supply chain executives to realize that some of their traditional sales and operations planning (S&OP) processes are no longer sufficient to keep pace with today’s dynamic changes in supply and demand. The clock speed has changed.
Sales and operations planning is one of the few structured, cross-functional processes at most companies. S&OP aligns strategy, finance, supply chain, operations, sales, marketing, and product development/engineering on longer-term operating decisions. Effective S&OP ties executive decisions with the activities of the dock. It creates a common view of future operations, and it holds people accountable for variances that impact the bottom line.
A mature S&OP process drives alignment and decision-making over a time horizon of three to 24+ months on strategic demand and supply plans, related policies, and significant investments. The executive S&OP meeting is the capstone of this structured process, which features a defined set of monthly meetings. The S&OP process typically includes:
sequential processes,
calendared demand (tied to specified time horizons),
inventory and supply meetings,
limited number of segment or margin scenarios to review, and
relatively predictable inputs.
Many of our clients, however, have found that the competencies and tools that typify S&OP placed them in a position of being unprepared to respond to disruptions that had no precedent, such as unpredictability of supply, supply hoarding, sudden labor shortages, immediate and dramatic demand and channel shifts, and cost swings. Instead, S&OP’s “what-if” planning discussions have been replaced with “What in the world will happen next”?
The experiences of the past two-plus years have many supply chain professionals questioning the value of planning. But we would argue that these processes and tools should not be abandoned. Effective planning creates a framework for addressing challenges when they occur; if the planning system is robust, then plans will align with company strategy. That’s why the planning process is still critically important: The ability to act when new challenges arise, quickly and in line with organizational goals, is separating companies that will be in a position of strength from those that will be struggling to pick up the financial pieces in these challenging times.
The pandemic continues to disrupt supply chains and crank up the uncertainty level. Today more than ever, organizations need capabilities that will allow them the flexibility to both improve their ability to forecast demand (improve accuracy) and reduce their reliance on that forecast (improve agility).
What’s an organization to do? Supplementing S&OP with a planning process known as sales and operations execution (S&OE) could help companies better meet the moment.
Understanding the pitfalls of S&OP
Effective S&OP requires a well-functioning set of “building blocks” that operate together. As shown in Figure 1, these building blocks fall into six interconnected dimensions that together form the framework of the S&OP process.
[Figure 1] Foundation of a well-functioning S&OP program Enlarge this image
Figure 1 shows that the elements of S&OP are well-defined. But S&OP is more than a process—it is a way of working. It must be as much a part of an organization’s culture and priorities as is sales. As illustrated by the top three blocks, securing executive buy-in for an S&OP program is critical for successful execution. When we’re introduced to a new company, we often ask if there is a supply chain professional on the executive team. Sometimes there is. Often there isn’t—and this can say a great deal about the company’s commitment to planning. Having a supply chain professional on the executive team suggests a level of maturity and an appreciation for their supply chain’s complexity and contribution to the company’s success. Supply chain executives help corporate leadership as well as sales and marketing understand the implications of alternatives and trade-offs. In short, failing to include a supply chain executive on the executive team does not set up the S&OP process for success.
Executives often express frustration and dissatisfaction that the S&OP process is “not working.” Often, that is not true; the process is working, just not in the way executives expected it would or as effectively as they think it should. There is no question that S&OP is a challenging process to implement and manage, and there are many reasons it may not be working as desired.
Figure 2 highlights some of the pitfalls that companies struggle with when they implement an S&OP process across their organization. For example, one that we frequently see occurs when a company’s S&OP process has become overburdened with short-term execution matters that it was never intended to handle. It’s not uncommon for high-level monthly meetings to get “hijacked” by participants focusing on short-term or tactical issues at a more fine-grained level. By design, S&OP facilitates cross-functional discussion, but this drift from its primary intent and charter makes it difficult for an S&OP meeting to achieve its objectives.
Significant deficiencies in any of the operating dimensions listed in Figure 2 will undermine an organization’s commitment to a plan. For example, recently we were introduced to a large manufacturer that had a very capable planning team utilizing what is a truly best-in-class S&OP technology solution for their particular industry. The team worked hard to collaborate across operations, finance, and sales to create a signal that drove plant requirements—which was then largely ignored by manufacturing.
The company had not adopted the clearly defined organizational roles required to effectively drive and support an S&OP program. This lack of organizational alignment allowed competing agendas across functions to take hold, and there was no accountability for failing to execute according to the plan the staff had worked so hard to develop. The S&OP process essentially broke down, and the severe impact of the pandemic on supply and demand only made those poor outcomes worse.
The benefits of adding S&OE
We began this article with a provocative question: Is it time to “blow up” S&OP? Despite planners’ concerns that the impacts of the pandemic are too unpredictable for S&OP’s structured process to handle, we believe the answer is no. For all its shortcomings, S&OP is still very much necessary; good planning will position an organization to be effective and agile. Yes, the forecast is always going to be wrong, but it’s possible to be less wrong—and that distinction is valuable.
Rather than abandoning the practice, we believe S&OP should be augmented with a robust sales and operations execution (S&OE) process.
S&OE is a cross-functional process that helps organizations determine discrete, tactical steps that are necessary to meet the quarter’s requirements. Like S&OP, it enables cross-functional communication that an organization otherwise would not have. S&OE aligns finance, supply chain, operations, and sales on decisions made about exceptions that occur in the 0–13-week horizon. These decisions may involve allocations, substitutions, inventory, labor, and expediting. The S&OE process is typically supported by structured demand/supply analysis and a weekly cross-functional meeting. Importantly, it does not replace S&OP rather, it supports that process by ensuring that S&OP remains focused on the longer-term horizon. (Figure 3 provides a simplified comparison of the two approaches.)
S&OE can begin as simply as a weekly demand/supply meeting to tackle cross-functional decisions that need to be made to help ensure quarterly objectives are met. Or it can start as a weekly touchpoint among S&OP participants to discuss “in-flight” disruptions that were not known during the normal S&OP cadence. In either case, the objective is simple: answering the question, “What’s changed?”
While S&OP is quite difficult to get right, S&OE (a term and concept originally introduced by the analyst firm Gartner) is less complex. Its narrower focus complements S&OP by identifying sudden supply chain complications that are often specific to a region, a supplier, or a customer/market, and then generating a response—a capability that is especially valuable in light of pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. S&OE also supports S&OP by functioning as the “adjust” component of a “plan-execute-compare-adjust” strategy. When both processes are in place and are functioning well, S&OE escalations are fed into the S&OP process, and S&OP policy decisions are reflected in the S&OE process.
There are some common S&OE pitfalls that companies should avoid. For example, all too often, S&OE efforts don’t incorporate the process input and discipline that are built into S&OP. And some companies, disillusioned with S&OP, try to implement S&OE by itself. But an organization that relies solely on S&OE will only be “fighting fires”—reacting to one near-term problem after another—without making the long-term, strategic decisions in areas like procurement and manufacturing that could address the root causes of the short-term challenges.
Unfortunately, companies that could benefit from adopting S&OE often fail to do so, in some cases because of concerns about the time and effort involved in adding this additional planning layer. Yet it doesn’t have to be a heavy lift; since the decisions around S&OE are more limited in scope and often are more regionally focused, the harmonization and decision-support requirements may be less rigorous than those for S&OP. The process may even become more automated over time, making it even easier to manage.
The smart move in turbulent times
The turbulence and unexpected events of the past two years might have tempted companies to abandon their planning process, but that is not the right way to go. It is critical to understand that not having a plan does not mean you are being agile. It means you are being naïve and unprepared.
S&OP and S&OE are both important, and they reinforce each other. This is a case where the whole truly is greater than the sum of the parts—and companies need to implement and carry out both to maximize the effectiveness of either. (The quick self-assessment in the sidebar below will help you determine whether you have strong S&OP and S&OE processes.)
The unforeseen “black swan” effects in the past year have not all been about COVID-19 and emerging variants … and it’s likely they won’t be the last ones we’ll have to contend with. Adding agility to your S&OP process by incorporating S&OE will give you greater speed and confidence in your response, positioning you to be thinking ahead about the challenges—and opportunities—that will be presented in the coming months.
Do you have sound S&OP and S&OE processes? A self-assessment
How well prepared are you to tackle supply chain disruptions? Do you have sound S&OP and S&OE processes? How do you know? Here are some questions to ask yourself. If you’re on the right track, your answer should be “yes” to each.
1. Do you make decisions in your S&OE/S&OP meetings? Mature S&OE/S&OP processes are focused on making decisions, not simply reporting historical events. If you are making clear and sound decisions in your process, then you are on the right track. If not, then no matter how “correct” your process appears to be, you are missing opportunities for improvement.
2. Do you have a “single version of the truth” for these events? Often, companies have disparate information systems and weak data governance that make it difficult to achieve an accurate, shared view of business conditions. An effective decision-making process depends on having facts that are agreed upon by all participants.
3. Do you all speak the same supply chain “language”? When business units have different definitions and terminology for parameters and key performance indicators (KPIs), the trade-off decisions across segments may not be based on equivalent information. If you have aligned these details, then you will have a solid foundation for optimizing decisions across all segments.
4. Can you run a demand/supply scenario in a day? If you can do this quickly, then you have a solid decision-making tool for anticipating and managing change at your disposal. You may even be able to quickly run scenarios that include key suppliers, a benefit for both parties.
5. Do you have the right balance of central and local control? If your service delivery model incorporates the right balance of activities under local and central control, then you will be able to maximize the value of your process by optimizing across individual sites and common trading partners.
6. Do you have a balanced scorecard and aligned incentives across business segments? This alignment theme is reflected in several other questions—and no wonder: alignment is at the heart of a successful S&OP process. Without alignment of performance expectations and incentives, it is difficult to make cross-functional decisions that will “stick” and be quickly carried out.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
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).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain.”
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
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.