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
Just 29% of supply chain organizations have the competitive characteristics they’ll need for future readiness, according to a Gartner survey released Tuesday. The survey focused on how organizations are preparing for future challenges and to keep their supply chains competitive.
Gartner surveyed 579 supply chain practitioners to determine the capabilities needed to manage the “future drivers of influence” on supply chains, which include artificial intelligence (AI) achievement and the ability to navigate new trade policies. According to the survey, the five competitive characteristics are: agility, resilience, regionalization, integrated ecosystems, and integrated enterprise strategy.
The survey analysis identified “leaders” among the respondents as supply chain organizations that have already developed at least three of the five competitive characteristics necessary to address the top five drivers of supply chain’s future.
Less than a third have met that threshold.
“Leaders shared a commitment to preparation through long-term, deliberate strategies, while non-leaders were more often focused on short-term priorities,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, vice president analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a statement announcing the survey results.
“Most leaders have yet to invest in the most advanced technologies (e.g. real-time visibility, digital supply chain twin), but plan to do so in the next three-to-five years,” Manenti also said in the statement. “Leaders see technology as an enabler to their overall business strategies, while non-leaders more often invest in technology first, without having fully established their foundational capabilities.”
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the future drivers of influence on supply chain performance over the next three to five years. The top five drivers are: achievement capability of AI (74%); the amount of new ESG regulations and trade policies being released (67%); geopolitical fight/transition for power (65%); control over data (62%); and talent scarcity (59%).
The analysis also identified four unique profiles of supply chain organizations, based on what their leaders deem as the most crucial capabilities for empowering their organizations over the next three to five years.
First, 54% of retailers are looking for ways to increase their financial recovery from returns. That’s because the cost to return a purchase averages 27% of the purchase price, which erases as much as 50% of the sales margin. But consumers have their own interests in mind: 76% of shoppers admit they’ve embellished or exaggerated the return reason to avoid a fee, a 39% increase from 2023 to 204.
Second, return experiences matter to consumers. A whopping 80% of shoppers stopped shopping at a retailer because of changes to the return policy—a 34% increase YoY.
Third, returns fraud and abuse is top-of-mind-for retailers, with wardrobing rising 38% in 2024. In fact, over two thirds (69%) of shoppers admit to wardrobing, which is the practice of buying an item for a specific reason or event and returning it after use. Shoppers also practice bracketing, or purchasing an item in a variety of colors or sizes and then returning all the unwanted options.
Fourth, returns come with a steep cost in terms of sustainability, with returns amounting to 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste in 2023 alone.
“As returns have become an integral part of the shopper experience, retailers must balance meeting sky-high expectations with rising costs, environmental impact, and fraudulent behaviors,” Amena Ali, CEO of Optoro, said in the firm’s “2024 Returns Unwrapped” report. “By understanding shoppers’ behaviors and preferences around returns, retailers can create returns experiences that embrace their needs while driving deeper loyalty and protecting their bottom line.”
Facing an evolving supply chain landscape in 2025, companies are being forced to rethink their distribution strategies to cope with challenges like rising cost pressures, persistent labor shortages, and the complexities of managing SKU proliferation.
1. Optimize labor productivity and costs. Forward-thinking businesses are leveraging technology to get more done with fewer resources through approaches like slotting optimization, automation and robotics, and inventory visibility.
2. Maximize capacity with smart solutions. With e-commerce volumes rising, facilities need to handle more SKUs and orders without expanding their physical footprint. That can be achieved through high-density storage and dynamic throughput.
3. Streamline returns management. Returns are a growing challenge, thanks to the continued growth of e-commerce and the consumer practice of bracketing. Businesses can handle that with smarter reverse logistics processes like automated returns processing and reverse logistics visibility.
4. Accelerate order fulfillment with robotics. Robotic solutions are transforming the way orders are fulfilled, helping businesses meet customer expectations faster and more accurately than ever before by using autonomous mobile robots (AMRs and robotic picking.
5. Enhance end-of-line packaging. The final step in the supply chain is often the most visible to customers. So optimizing packaging processes can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support sustainability goals through automated packaging systems and sustainability initiatives.
Geopolitical rivalries, alliances, and aspirations are rewiring the global economy—and the imposition of new tariffs on foreign imports by the U.S. will accelerate that process, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Without a broad increase in tariffs, world trade in goods will keep growing at an average of 2.9% annually for the next eight years, the firm forecasts in its report, “Great Powers, Geopolitics, and the Future of Trade.” But the routes goods travel will change markedly as North America reduces its dependence on China and China builds up its links with the Global South, which is cementing its power in the global trade map.
“Global trade is set to top $29 trillion by 2033, but the routes these goods will travel is changing at a remarkable pace,” Aparna Bharadwaj, managing director and partner at BCG, said in a release. “Trade lanes were already shifting from historical patterns and looming US tariffs will accelerate this. Navigating these new dynamics will be critical for any global business.”
To understand those changes, BCG modeled the direct impact of the 60/25/20 scenario (60% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% on imports from all other countries). The results show that the tariffs would add $640 billion to the cost of importing goods from the top ten U.S. import nations, based on 2023 levels, unless alternative sources or suppliers are found.
In terms of product categories imported by the U.S., the greatest impact would be on imported auto parts and automotive vehicles, which would primarily affect trade with Mexico, the EU, and Japan. Consumer electronics, electrical machinery, and fashion goods would be most affected by higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Specifically, the report forecasts that a 60% tariff rate would add $61 billion to cost of importing consumer electronics products from China into the U.S.
That strategy is described by RILA President Brian Dodge in a document titled “2025 Retail Public Policy Agenda,” which begins by describing leading retailers as “dynamic and multifaceted businesses that begin on Main Street and stretch across the world to bring high value and affordable consumer goods to American families.”
RILA says its policy priorities support that membership in four ways:
Investing in people. Retail is for everyone; the place for a first job, 2nd chance, third act, or a side hustle – the retail workforce represents the American workforce.
Ensuring a safe, sustainable future. RILA is working with lawmakers to help shape policies that protect our customers and meet expectations regarding environmental concerns.
Leading in the community. Retail is more than a store; we are an integral part of the fabric of our communities.
“As Congress and the Trump administration move forward to adopt policies that reduce regulatory burdens, create economic growth, and bring value to American families, understanding how such policies will impact retailers and the communities we serve is imperative,” Dodge said. “RILA and its member companies look forward to collaborating with policymakers to provide industry-specific insights and data to help shape any policies under consideration.”