Many companies are excited about the possibility that artificial intelligence could improve the accuracy of their demand plans. However, there are several significant hurdles that they must overcome first.
Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to draw a lot of attention as companies and technology vendors look at how machine learning could improve supply chain operations. In particular demand planning, understood here as the process of developing forecasts that will drive operational supply chain decisions, is being touted as the next potential field for innovation. Technology giants like Amazon and Microsoft have announced AI tools for improving demand planning, and several consulting companies are promoting their skills to bring AI to companies' demand planning processes. In fact, a recent survey by the Institute of Business Forecasting and Planning (IBF) identified AI as the technology that will have the largest impact on demand planning in the next seven years.1
It's not hard to see the fit between AI and demand planning. Demand planning involves lots of number crunching and data analytics, and it is repeated cycle after cycle. Given the nature of the activity, it is tempting to imagine that a self-learning AI application could do at least as good a job as a human planner at forecasting demand.
A closer look, however, reveals that there are some serious challenges to AI successfully penetrating the demand planning market. These challenges are not so much technical as they are managerial. Even if AI does not become a significant contributor to demand planning accuracy, addressing these challenges can only improve a company's demand planning performance.
The need for data and digital savviness
The most striking challenge that companies face as they apply AI to demand planning is the availability and accuracy of data. The more data that is provided to an AI application, the more robust the resulting conclusions are, making data availability an essential foundation to a successful AI implementation. Internally, companies already struggle to maintain accurate data, even for the most basic of elements such as product code. Ever-accelerating product launches and shrinking product lifecycles mean more product churn than ever. One corporate head of planning that we spoke to said: "Let's show we can correctly link product codes in substitutions (where one product transitions into replacing another) before thinking about AI."
In addition to internal data, a good demand plan also requires external data in the form of market intelligence, such as competitor actions, customer behaviors, and trade disruptions like price changes and sell-out data.
Furthermore, all of this data needs to be interpreted correctly. For example, in order to build a correct demand plan, an accurate baseline for demand must be established. One-off events, such as service issues and one-time promotions, have to be identified and accounted for, otherwise they may skew the planner's understanding of the underlying demand. This initial step of cleansing the data for statistical treatment is often a critical source of error, as it requires a clean view of the history of past activity of the product. One demand planning expert we spoke to claimed that from his experience this step of trying to define a clean baseline accounts for 60 percent of demand planning errors. In order for an AI application to learn from these one-off events they would need to be fully understood and coded, which is no small effort.
In addition to these data challenges, many companies today struggle with their digital culture and level of savviness. We spoke to many large multinationals that have made serious investments in demand planning tools, and almost all of them face the same struggle: Their planners prefer to build demand plans in Excel first, and then upload them into the expensive, integrated demand planning tools they must use to propagate their demand plans. The usual explanation for this resistance is that the tools don't have enough of the internal and external contextual data to build pertinent statistical plans.
A recent survey by Arizona State University, Colorado State University, and Competitive Insights revealed that Excel is by far the most common analytical tool used by supply chain planners, with advanced tools like supply chain control towers used by about 60 percent of companies.2 This matches our anecdotal observation that only about half of companies use an advanced planning system (APS).
The absence of data, resistance to using the existing suite of statistical tools, and low level of digital savviness represent non-negligible challenges to the deployment of AI-enabled demand planning.
The need for one set of numbers
Demand planning is a critical activity in the sales and operations planning (S&OP) process. The objective of S&OP is to obtain alignment from all actors in the company, ideally ensuring that operations mobilizes its resources to supply what the business needs to meet its financial goals, while also ensuring that the financial goals account for the current operational constraints.
A fundamental pillar of the S&OP process is the notion of "one set of numbers," which means that operations and finance are working off a shared understanding of the forward planned activity for the business. The primary drivers for this goal are that no market opportunities are missed due to asupply/demand imbalance, and operations is focused on the true business needs rather than on an inflated demand that acts as a supplemental safety stock.
When a company ties its financial plan to the operational plan, general managers are driven to involve themselves—along with their commercial and marketing teams—in the demand planning process in order to have the most viable demand plan possible. Their involvement in the planning process is critical, as they can provide the demand planners with the valuable external market intelligence mentioned earlier. Just as importantly, from a managerial perspective, having one set of numbers means that any effort by general managers to manipulate the demand plan would also change the financial pan, which they are loath to do as it constitutes their commitment to executive leadership.
When AI is used to generate a demand plan, that demand plan becomes part of the "one set of numbers." Otherwise general managers would be tempted to return to old reflexes such as considering the demand plan outside their sphere of interest, not being as committed to providing demand planners with the necessary external data and market intelligence, and perhaps once again adjusting the numbers to their subjective tastes. But maintaining the tie between the AI-generated demand plan and the financial plan would require asking general managers to allow their financial projections to be generated by the AI application. This would be a consequential management hurdle for supply chains to overcome.
That's because the introduction of AI-generated demand plans would bring with it what is termed the "explainability problem" of AI.3 This term describes the reluctance managers have to using AI applications that seem like a "black box," where the reasoning and logic used to obtain the results are difficult to explain, even if they are of high quality. The explainability problem is currently a tangible hurdle for successful AI deployments and is even driving some AI proponents to suggest solutions that may be less accurate but more explainable to the target business community.4
Our research suggests very few companies today have truly achieved a "one set of numbers" in practice.5 Having a more accurate, AI-enabled demand plan at the expense of placing a serious obstacle to implementing S&OP (due to the explainability problem) does not seem like a necessarily winning trade off. In other words, are companies better off having a (perhaps) highly accurate AI-generated demand plan that does not reflect the true business activity due to lack of alignment, or a slightly less accurate non-AI generated one that is aligned with the business ambitions?
The explainability problem doesn't preclude the use of AI for demand planning, but it does suggest that it be considered only for companies that have achieved very high S&OP maturity and integration between the operational and financial planning activities. This maturity would likely correspond with both more digitally savvy demand planners and a higher confidence of general managers in the ability of the demand planners to provide an AI-generated demand plan that represents the most accurate view of the forward business activity.
AI as accelerator
The challenges to applying AI to demand planning shouldn't be seen as insurmountable hurdles. Rather, AI could be an accelerator that pushes companies to confront these data and managerial issues head-on. Indeed, even if AI does not become a significant contributor to demand planning accuracy, addressing these challenges—data availability and accuracy and a willingness to use sophisticated analytics tools—can only improve a company's demand planning performance.
A sound, participatory S&OP process that assembles and leverages robust and accurate internal and external data to reach a consensus number for both operations and finance should be the target for all companies. If the IBF survey prediction is correct that the coming years will see deep contributions from AI in demand planning, these fundamentals of data management of managerial processes will have made it possible.
5. Richard Markoff, "Who's in charge?: Sales and operations planning governance and alignment in the supply chain management of multinational industrial companies," https://www.theses.fr/2017PA01E015
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.