By Ed Lawson
As we witness piecemeal recovery from the pandemic, and extreme fluctuation due to localised lock downs and restrictions and their effect on consumer behaviour, it's become even more vital to know what's coming next, and where demand will come from. Ticketed events can yield early insight into recovery, acting as a vital data source for those who need to pick up early market signals to be able to avoid shortages and manage supply. In this discussion we'll discuss what insights some companies are already gleaning from events, whilst sharing key intelligence on what events tell us, how you can build the data into your modelling, and how to weight this to get ahead of the curve. AGENDA How events are leading demand indicators to help navigate a fragmented recovery How to incorporate future-focused data into your demand forecasting models Real-time data sources - what's possible Understanding multiple types of demand causal factors (unscheduled events, scheduled attended, scheduled non-attended, and Live TV Events) WHO FOR?
Industry sectors: particularly relevant for Consumer Goods / FMCG and Food & Beverage companies
Org. size (annual T/O): typically £50m+
Roles & remits: Heads of: Supply Chain, Demand Forecasting, AI/Data Insight
ABOUT INTENT DISCUSSIONS
All discussions are private, held under the Chatham House Rule and moderated by INTENT with approx. 6-8 participants for 45-85 mins of candid, interactive discussion (not a passive webinar) Some discussions include subject matter experts from member-recommended INTENT Partners, others are exchanges of best practice, experiences and ideas among practitioner members only Discussions are shaped by participants according to their interests and questions We may adjust participation to avoid competitive sensitivities and ensure productive discussion WHEN?
Tuesday 8th June (11.00 BST / 12.00 CEST) for max. 85 minutes
Hosted by Intent
Guest experts: Bryan Harris from PredictHQ
Request to join
By JP Doggett
The pandemic has prompted a shift to non-store channels, including delivery and click & collect, accelerating a trend that was already well established. For many, the response has been tactical with a 'whatever it takes' approach to serving customers however they wish. In tandem with the drive to reduce waste, there are important questions about whether the status quo is sustainable or whether a fundamental re-think and re-design of supply chain operations, enabled by digital technologies, is now an urgent priority. If so, how?
Next-gen omnichannel retailing - e2e visibility & demand shaping
How machine learning can improve forecasting accuracy across channels with leading demand indicators End-to-end omnichannel planning with a singular integrated view on merchandising and supply chain across all channels Leveraging rich customer data to proactively shape demand and reduce waste Best practices for scaling operations automation over time WHO FOR?
Industry sectors: current practitioners from Retail, Consumer Goods / FMCG, Apparel and Food & Beverage
Located: UK & European Union
Org. size (annual T/O): typically £1bn+, multi-echelon / complex supply chains with international footprints
Roles & remits: Heads of: Supply Chain, Logistics and Planning with a role in evaluating and implementing support systems for integrated planning
ABOUT INTENT DISCUSSIONS
All discussions are private, held under the Chatham House Rule and moderated by INTENT with approx. 6-8 participants for 45-90 mins of candid, interactive discussion (not a passive webinar) Some discussions include subject matter experts from member-recommended INTENT Partners, others are exchanges of best practice, experiences and ideas among practitioner members only Discussions are shaped by participants according to their interests and questions We may adjust participation to avoid competitive sensitivities and ensure productive discussion WHEN?
Wednesday 16th May (10.00 BST / 11.00 CEST) for max. 90 minutes
Hosted by Intent
Expert guest: Aleem Bandali, Retail Lead EMEA, o9 Solutions
Request to join
Interested but can't make the date? Email us and we'll update you about future discussions.
By JP Doggett
Summary of a discussion on 11th March with members from General Mills, Atlas Copco, Corbion, Aston Martin, Unilever, Alstom, GSK focusing on an implementation of concurrent led by Ayse Gul at British American Tobacco with Alexis Rotenberg of Kinaxis.
What participants wanted to improve about their current planning processes
Visibility and responsiveness to demand and supply volatility i.e. agility Scenario modelling capability including financial impacts Data-driven decisions Integration of planning & execution
Concurrent planning isn't a monolithic process or technology but should be adapted according to the industry / supply chain archetypes (MTO, MTS etc.) and the existing levels of maturity related to data management, process centralisation & stability and collaboration with partners It's vital to define exactly what is meant by 'agility' among all stakeholders. There are three types of agility: Faster decision-making, especially in response to disruption: for example, Lenovo was able to increase market share by responding faster to supply chain disruption Shorter planning cycles: no matter what your maturity or cadence now, moving to shorter cycles will bring benefits even in industries like steel-making Closing planning & execution gaps You can't (re)design a process independently of the technology that will enable it...it's like having a war strategy without knowing what weapons you have available Improvements can be realised at all levels of maturity: Less mature: simply connecting the data to better visualise it is a worthwhile first step More mature: breaking down internal silos in planning High maturity: integrating supply chain partners and execution systems although this can be especially complex in organisations with multiple legacy systems in place A quick win is being able to change the prioritisation of customer segments on the fly and immediately see the impacts on all horizons
BAT's implementation of concurrent planning
Started implementation in 2019 and due to complete in Q1 2022 Business case was stated in terms of both tangible benefits (e.g. working capital preservation including through better inventory control of higher value products) and intangible benefits (e.g. a better way of dealing with volatility and disruptions than manipulating Excel sheets) All key cross-functional stakeholders including senior management spent a lot of time at the beginning to thoroughly define agility and what value they wanted to extract from concurrent planning Planning is split into supply and demand teams. Supply planning is more centralised with 3 main global hubs (compared to spread over circa 100 country-based teams for demand planning) and, although more complex, had quite well established processes Implementation has been phased across regions in nine deployment waves following an agile methodology where learnings from the first waves inform subsequent waves Started with core planning and then expanding which could either further improving core planning or more focused on supplier collaboration Already had good process at a short-term, tactical level supported by a control tower but wanted to integrate suppliers who now log in directly which enables scenario planning based on supplier data
As mentioned above, a critical first step is to thoroughly define agility among all stakeholders and have a clear understanding of what the desired improvements should be Data management: BAT already had a global master data team and data stewards for governance. It took 3-4 years to establish mature processes from an already good base where the impact of different objects was well understood and different rules established according to their contexts User adoption & process compliance: this was the highest priority KPI at BAT. Daily and weekly checkpoints were set to monitor adoption and compliance to understand which processes and workbooks were being used and when. This feedback helped fine-tune the processes and improve adoption Don't touch: several participants mentioned analysis they had done that showed that as much as 70% of the manual touches in planning made no difference, either because they were too small or because, taken together over time, they cancelled each other out. This was a major focus for BAT who mandated a manual planning horizon of one week (instead of the typical 4-24 weeks) and compliance was reported to senior management. Once people began to see that the system helped them, process compliance reached 95%+ Centres of Excellence: a lot of emphasis was placed on leveraging key individuals who understood both operations and IT to help progress application support teams into truly cross-functional CoEs. Rather than a siloed approach of being referred to one application team or another, there was cross-application support and IT and subject-matter experts are able to speak the same language
Not everything can be captured by tools and systems - much effort has gone into supplier relationships to reinforce flexibility when required It's also important to consider the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence feeding into planning systems One possible outcome from taking a concurrent planning approach is redefining planning roles so that, rather than defining and demand or supply planners, they become more like 'network planners' and can structure around aptitudes for short-term or longer-term planning See also previous discussions: