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
Businesses are cautiously optimistic as peak holiday shipping season draws near, with many anticipating year-over-year sales increases as they continue to battle challenging supply chain conditions.
That’s according to the DHL 2024 Peak Season Shipping Survey, released today by express shipping service provider DHL Express U.S. The company surveyed small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to gauge their holiday business outlook compared to last year and found that a mix of optimism and “strategic caution” prevail ahead of this year’s peak.
Nearly half (48%) of the SMEs surveyed said they expect higher holiday sales compared to 2023, while 44% said they expect sales to remain on par with last year, and just 8% said they foresee a decline. Respondents said the main challenges to hitting those goals are supply chain problems (35%), inflation and fluctuating consumer demand (34%), staffing (16%), and inventory challenges (14%).
But respondents said they have strategies in place to tackle those issues. Many said they began preparing for holiday season earlier this year—with 45% saying they started planning in Q2 or earlier, up from 39% last year. Other strategies include expanding into international markets (35%) and leveraging holiday discounts (32%).
Sixty percent of respondents said they will prioritize personalized customer service as a way to enhance customer interactions and loyalty this year. Still others said they will invest in enhanced web and mobile experiences (23%) and eco-friendly practices (13%) to draw customers this holiday season.
The practice consists of 5,000 professionals from Accenture and from Avanade—the consulting firm’s joint venture with Microsoft. They will be supported by Microsoft product specialists who will work closely with the Accenture Center for Advanced AI. Together, that group will collaborate on AI and Copilot agent templates, extensions, plugins, and connectors to help organizations leverage their data and gen AI to reduce costs, improve efficiencies and drive growth, they said on Thursday.
Accenture and Avanade say they have already developed some AI tools for these applications. For example, a supplier discovery and risk agent can deliver real-time market insights, agile supply chain responses, and better vendor selection, which could result in up to 15% cost savings. And a procure-to-pay agent could improve efficiency by up to 40% and enhance vendor relations and satisfaction by addressing urgent payment requirements and avoiding disruptions of key services
Likewise, they have also built solutions for clients using Microsoft 365 Copilot technology. For example, they have created Copilots for a variety of industries and functions including finance, manufacturing, supply chain, retail, and consumer goods and healthcare.
Another part of the new practice will be educating clients how to use the technology, using an “Azure Generative AI Engineer Nanodegree program” to teach users how to design, build, and operationalize AI-driven applications on Azure, Microsoft’s cloud computing platform. The online classes will teach learners how to use AI models to solve real-world problems through automation, data insights, and generative AI solutions, the firms said.
“We are pleased to deepen our collaboration with Accenture to help our mutual customers develop AI-first business processes responsibly and securely, while helping them drive market differentiation,” Judson Althoff, executive vice president and chief commercial officer at Microsoft, said in a release. “By bringing together Copilots and human ambition, paired with the autonomous capabilities of an agent, we can accelerate AI transformation for organizations across industries and help them realize successful business outcomes through pragmatic innovation.”
Census data showed that overall retail sales in October were up 0.4% seasonally adjusted month over month and up 2.8% unadjusted year over year. That compared with increases of 0.8% month over month and 2% year over year in September.
October’s core retail sales as defined by NRF — based on the Census data but excluding automobile dealers, gasoline stations and restaurants — were unchanged seasonally adjusted month over month but up 5.4% unadjusted year over year.
Core sales were up 3.5% year over year for the first 10 months of the year, in line with NRF’s forecast for 2024 retail sales to grow between 2.5% and 3.5% over 2023. NRF is forecasting that 2024 holiday sales during November and December will also increase between 2.5% and 3.5% over the same time last year.
“October’s pickup in retail sales shows a healthy pace of spending as many consumers got an early start on holiday shopping,” NRF Chief Economist Jack Kleinhenz said in a release. “October sales were a good early step forward into the holiday shopping season, which is now fully underway. Falling energy prices have likely provided extra dollars for household spending on retail merchandise.”
Despite that positive trend, market watchers cautioned that retailers still need to offer competitive value propositions and customer experience in order to succeed in the holiday season. “The American consumer has been more resilient than anyone could have expected. But that isn’t a free pass for retailers to under invest in their stores,” Nikki Baird, VP of strategy & product at Aptos, a solutions provider of unified retail technology based out of Alpharetta, Georgia, said in a statement. “They need to make investments in labor, customer experience tech, and digital transformation. It has been too easy to kick the can down the road until you suddenly realize there’s no road left.”
A similar message came from Chip West, a retail and consumer behavior expert at the marketing, packaging, print and supply chain solutions provider RRD. “October’s increase proved to be slightly better than projections and was likely boosted by lower fuel prices. As inflation slowed for a number of months, prices in several categories have stabilized, with some even showing declines, offering further relief to consumers,” West said. “The data also looks to be a positive sign as we kick off the holiday shopping season. Promotions and discounts will play a prominent role in holiday shopping behavior as they are key influencers in consumer’s purchasing decisions.”
Third-party logistics (3PL) providers’ share of large real estate leases across the U.S. rose significantly through the third quarter of 2024 compared to the same time last year, as more retailers and wholesalers have been outsourcing their warehouse and distribution operations to 3PLs, according to a report from real estate firm CBRE.
Specifically, 3PLs’ share of bulk industrial leasing activity—covering leases of 100,000 square feet or more—rose to 34.1% through Q3 of this year from 30.6% through Q3 last year. By raw numbers, 3PLs have accounted for 498 bulk leases so far this year, up by 9% from the 457 at this time last year.
By category, 3PLs’ share of 34.1% ranked above other occupier types such as: general retail and wholesale (26.6), food and beverage (9.0), automobiles, tires, and parts (7.9), manufacturing (6.2), building materials and construction (5.6), e-commerce only (5.6), medical (2.7), and undisclosed (2.3).
On a quarterly basis, bulk leasing by 3PLs has steadily increased this year, reversing the steadily decreasing trend of 2023. CBRE pointed to three main reasons for that resurgence:
Import Flexibility. Labor disruptions, extreme weather patterns, and geopolitical uncertainty have led many companies to diversify their import locations. Using 3PLs allows for more inventory flexibility, a key component to retailer success in times of uncertainty.
Capital Allocation/Preservation. Warehousing and distribution of goods is expensive, draining capital resources for transportation costs, rent, or labor. But outsourcing to 3PLs provides companies with more flexibility to increase or decrease their inventories without any risk of signing their own lease commitments. And using a 3PL also allows companies to switch supply chain costs from capital to operational expenses.
Focus on Core Competency. Outsourcing their logistics operations to 3PLs allows companies to focus on core business competencies that drive revenue, such as product development, sales, and customer service.
Looking into the future, these same trends will continue to drive 3PL warehouse demand, CBRE said. Economic, geopolitical and supply chain uncertainty will remain prevalent in the coming quarters but will not diminish the need to effectively manage inventory levels.
That result came from the company’s “GEP Global Supply Chain Volatility Index,” an indicator tracking demand conditions, shortages, transportation costs, inventories, and backlogs based on a monthly survey of 27,000 businesses. The October index number was -0.39, which was up only slightly from its level of -0.43 in September.
Researchers found a steep rise in slack across North American supply chains due to declining factory activity in the U.S. In fact, purchasing managers at U.S. manufacturers made their strongest cutbacks to buying volumes in nearly a year and a half, indicating that factories in the world's largest economy are preparing for lower production volumes, GEP said.
Elsewhere, suppliers feeding Asia also reported spare capacity in October, albeit to a lesser degree than seen in Western markets. Europe's industrial plight remained a key feature of the data in October, as vendor capacity was significantly underutilized, reflecting a continuation of subdued demand in key manufacturing hubs across the continent.
"We're in a buyers' market. October is the fourth straight month that suppliers worldwide reported spare capacity, with notable contractions in factory demand across North America and Europe, underscoring the challenging outlook for Western manufacturers," Todd Bremer, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "President-elect Trump inherits U.S. manufacturers with plenty of spare capacity while in contrast, China's modest rebound and strong expansion in India demonstrate greater resilience in Asia."