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.
ReposiTrak, a global food traceability network operator, will partner with Upshop, a provider of store operations technology for food retailers, to create an end-to-end grocery traceability solution that reaches from the supply chain to the retail store, the firms said today.
The partnership creates a data connection between suppliers and the retail store. It works by integrating Salt Lake City-based ReposiTrak’s network of thousands of suppliers and their traceability shipment data with Austin, Texas-based Upshop’s network of more than 450 retailers and their retail stores.
That accomplishment is important because it will allow food sector trading partners to meet the U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204d (FSMA 204) requirements that they must create and store complete traceability records for certain foods.
And according to ReposiTrak and Upshop, the traceability solution may also unlock potential business benefits. It could do that by creating margin and growth opportunities in stores by connecting supply chain data with store data, thus allowing users to optimize inventory, labor, and customer experience management automation.
"Traceability requires data from the supply chain and – importantly – confirmation at the retail store that the proper and accurate lot code data from each shipment has been captured when the product is received. The missing piece for us has been the supply chain data. ReposiTrak is the leader in capturing and managing supply chain data, starting at the suppliers. Together, we can deliver a single, comprehensive traceability solution," Mark Hawthorne, chief innovation and strategy officer at Upshop, said in a release.
"Once the data is flowing the benefits are compounding. Traceability data can be used to improve food safety, reduce invoice discrepancies, and identify ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout the store,” Hawthorne said.
Under FSMA 204, retailers are required by law to track Key Data Elements (KDEs) to the store-level for every shipment containing high-risk food items from the Food Traceability List (FTL). ReposiTrak and Upshop say that major industry retailers have made public commitments to traceability, announcing programs that require more traceability data for all food product on a faster timeline. The efforts of those retailers have activated the industry, motivating others to institute traceability programs now, ahead of the FDA’s enforcement deadline of January 20, 2026.
Inclusive procurement practices can fuel economic growth and create jobs worldwide through increased partnerships with small and diverse suppliers, according to a study from the Illinois firm Supplier.io.
The firm’s “2024 Supplier Diversity Economic Impact Report” found that $168 billion spent directly with those suppliers generated a total economic impact of $303 billion. That analysis can help supplier diversity managers and chief procurement officers implement programs that grow diversity spend, improve supply chain competitiveness, and increase brand value, the firm said.
The companies featured in Supplier.io’s report collectively supported more than 710,000 direct jobs and contributed $60 billion in direct wages through their investments in small and diverse suppliers. According to the analysis, those purchases created a ripple effect, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and driving $105 billion in total income when factoring in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.
“At Supplier.io, we believe that empowering businesses with advanced supplier intelligence not only enhances their operational resilience but also significantly mitigates risks,” Aylin Basom, CEO of Supplier.io, said in a release. “Our platform provides critical insights that drive efficiency and innovation, enabling companies to find and invest in small and diverse suppliers. This approach helps build stronger, more reliable supply chains.”
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
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).
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.