Tremors. Seismic shifts. In supply chain management technology there is a fault line separating new, innovative technology providers and traditional supply chain software providers, and the gap between them is growing.
In fact, the market for supply chain management technology is dramatically changing. On one side, I am seeing market consolidation among traditional application providers, which does not bode well for innovation (a topic I discuss later in this article). On the other, I am seeing startups explore how innovations such as artificial intelligence and blockchain can be applied to the supply chain.
Where are the most important changes happening? Here are five fundamental shifts in supply chain technology that companies need to be aware of:
Redefinition of decision-support software. Decision support includes all forms of planning: demand, supply, revenue, manufacturing, and transportation. There is currently a lot of noise in this market. In the past few months, I have spoken to several emerging cognitive computing companies that are attempting to redefine decision-support technologies. Cognitive computing involves using self-learning systems to mine data, recognize patterns, and process language in order to mimic the way the human brain works. The inclusion of cognitive computing in decision support will make the traditional applications in the advanced planning solution markets obsolete.
Disintermediation of business process outsourcing (BPO). In the past, companies have focused on labor outsourcing and third-party solutions to reduce headcount. The result? While they have shifted costs down the value chain, they have also lost control of process integrity. To regain control, companies should eliminate BPO providers through the use of machine learning and automation. In addition, blockchain and cryptocurrencies can and should disintermediate business process outsourcing.
Emergence of digital manufacturing technologies. Technologies such as robotics, wearables, the Internet of Things, and additive (3-D) manufacturing are redefining manufacturing. These new technologies will change how manufacturers define spare-parts requirements, schedule maintenance, and conduct production planning. They have the possibility to become even more revolutionary when combined with other new technologies such as cognitive computing, blockchain, and analytics.
Adoption of autonomous vehicle technologies. Logistics is already being transformed by autonomous vehicle technology. For example, some companies are exploring how drones using machine learning can perform real-time inventory counts in warehouses, and others are considering how self-driving vehicles can be used for deliveries.
Redesign of B2B transactions. For the last two decades, we have been trying to squeeze pennies from business-to-business (B2B) transactions through hands-free processing and automation. We now have the opportunity to use blockchain to redefine and redesign these practices. For example, blockchain could be used to better track quality control and chain of custody in the cold chain, improve lineage/track-and-trace to ensure brand integrity, and redefine multiparty finance. Leaders can now start to think about how to drive true value with suppliers instead of focusing on payment concerns such as how to extend payables, increase fines and/or penalties, or use third-party outsourcing to handle payments.
These changes can only happen, however, if we can learn from the past, rethink the future, and "unlearn" old ways of thinking about the supply chain. Many companies, however, are hamstrung by "legacy thinking" that focuses on functional optimization rather than on driving improvements across the entire supply chain network. The challenge lies in "unlearning" outdated approaches.
It won't be easy for companies to change their thinking when it comes to supply chain technology, but here are some early lessons and observations I believe will be helpful.
A separate innovation team will produce the best results. Having the digital innovation team embedded in the information technology (IT) organization is like drilling a hole in bedrock. It just does not work. Most IT departments are loyal to their enterprise resource planning (ERP) providers and legacy consulting relationships. Their fear of change slows down the adoption of innovative technologies and business processes. To create new business models using new technology, you need testing and learning to be done by small, scrappy teams.
It is not sustainable for system integrators/consultants to build software. When it comes to cutting-edge technologies, many consultants are playing catch-up. In some cases, the innovations occurring on the technology front pose challenges to their traditional business models, so consultants may not fully embrace them.
Innovation will never come from consolidating applications. History has shown that software aggregation reduces the software's market value. Across the decades in the supply chain market, the acquisition of software products by technology vendors only provides value for the venture capitalists or the owners of the companies. There are few acquisitions that add value to the end-user or lead to innovation.
Supply chain leaders who believe they have all the answers need to be fired. We don't have the answers, and we don't have best practices for now and the future. What we have are historical practices and stalled progress on metrics. Supply Chain Insights has found that 90 percent of companies are not making progress on key supply chain metrics, such as cost, inventory, growth, and return on invested capital (ROIC).
We are seeing innovation, but it's happening at the edge. The question is how to move it to the core of the business. We need to challenge the fundamentals of the past and redefine the processes of the future. Doing this requires executive leadership. It cannot happen at the functional level.
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).
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.
That percentage is even greater than the 13.21% of total retail sales that were returned. Measured in dollars, returns (including both legitimate and fraudulent) last year reached $685 billion out of the $5.19 trillion in total retail sales.
“It’s clear why retailers want to limit bad actors that exhibit fraudulent and abusive returns behavior, but the reality is that they are finding stricter returns policies are not reducing the returns fraud they face,” Michael Osborne, CEO of Appriss Retail, said in a release.
Specifically, the report lists the leading types of returns fraud and abuse reported by retailers in 2024, including findings that:
60% of retailers surveyed reported incidents of “wardrobing,” or the act of consumers buying an item, using the merchandise, and then returning it.
55% cited cases of returning an item obtained through fraudulent or stolen tender, such as stolen credit cards, counterfeit bills, gift cards obtained through fraudulent means or fraudulent checks.
48% of retailers faced occurrences of returning stolen merchandise.
Together, those statistics show that the problem remains prevalent despite growing efforts by retailers to curb retail returns fraud through stricter returns policies, while still offering a sufficiently open returns policy to keep customers loyal, they said.
“Returns are a significant cost for retailers, and the rise of online shopping could increase this trend,” Kevin Mahoney, managing director, retail, Deloitte Consulting LLP, said. “As retailers implement policies to address this issue, they should avoid negatively affecting customer loyalty and retention. Effective policies should reduce losses for the retailer while minimally impacting the customer experience. This approach can be crucial for long-term success.”