Demand Forecasting
Lora Cecere: MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL….
by LORA CECERE, Altimeter Group, www.altimetergroup.com
In the movie Snow White, the Queen possesses a magical mirror that answers any question, to which she often asks: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who in the land is fairest of all?” …to which the mirror always replies “You, my queen, are fairest of all.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Companies want to know “who has the best supply chain?” Unfortunately, there is no supply chain magic mirror; however, each June we can get summarized financial data. While not a perfect mirror, it is a partial reflection. It is definately more accurate than mistakenly believing that each supply chain is as good as it gets (e.g. the Queen’s magic mirror in Snow White).
The normal cycle of financial reporting makes June a perfect month to review the past year. So just as students gather around bulletin boards at the end of the school term and check their grades, in June, I scour websites to understand how supply chains stack up. Luckily, two articles –the CFO Magazine’s Working Capital Survey (http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14499542) and the CSCMP Annual State of Logistics Report (http://cscmp.org/memberonly/state.asp)– are published in June to serve as year-over-year guideposts to answer the question, who does supply chain best?
2009. A Year in Review
2009 was a true litmus test. It was the height of the recession. Aggregate volume declined 23% and fundamental demand shifted. Despite investments in technology, in aggregate, the supply chain response was slower in this recession than in the prior 2001 recession. There is a growing gap between leaders—companies that really understand and practice the concepts of supply chain management—and laggards. Companies that excelled at supply chain management sensed demand changes 5X faster and realigned network decisions than their peer groups (http://www.supplychainshaman.com/category/supply-chain-economic-recovery/).
For many, 2009 was a working capital hangover as companies reeled in the recession aftershocks. It was the worst year ever, in this writer’s history, for working capital management. For 68% of the Fortune 1000 companies, Days of Working Capital (DWC) grew. Facing new market obstacles in collections, payables and inventory management, companies buckled their belts and scrambled for cash. As inventory levels climbed during the first part of 2009, tension grew in supply chain discussions. This was the most problematic –even desperate– for companies when high asset utilization was mistakenly defined as supply chain excellence.
The tightening of credit through 2010 put the spotlight on inventory management (even for companies that had never cared about inventory before). The bloated inventories of 2008 through early 2009, sent a shock wave through executive discussions; and even though business inventories dropped for the first three quarters of 2009 and rebounded in the fourth quarter below pre-recessionary levels, executive teams remain on edge. As the curtain rises for the last half of 2010, the links in the supply chain are weakened. Capacity is tightening and prices will rise. The termsdemand sensing, demand shaping, and demand orchestration have a new meaning for battle-weary supply chain veterans.
2009: How did we do?
The good met the test. The average and poor supply chain processes were not equal and succumbed. What made a difference? Companies focused on traditional supply chain planning and tight integration of planning processes to Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) did the poorest. Companies with an outward-focus on market drivers and building strong what-if analysis to understand demand uncertainty did the best. Leaders have the right stuff. Laggards have a new respect for supply chain excellence.
Let me preface this analysis with a caveat. I do not believe that you can throw all industries in a spreadsheet and declare a supply chain victor. Since value drivers within each industry are different; I think that true supply chain leadership can ONLY be seen when you compare companies within peer groups.
In this downturn, supply chains experienced a seismic shift. Using the earthquake analogy, it was an eight or nine on the rector scale. As I thumbed through the CFO magazine results, I considered many; but settled on three stories:
Containers & Packaging:
Suppliers, at the end of the supply chain, are whipped hard by economic downturns. When it comes to fighting this bullwhip effect, supply chain excellence matters. Contrast the stories of Sonoco Products and Owens Illinois. Sunoco Products, a 3.6 billion dollar company, located in South Carolina, manufacturers packaging film for the consumer products industry. The company has been on a four-year journey to become more demand driven with a strong focus on S&OP. Owens Illinois (OI), a manufacturer of glass containers with US headquarters in Ohio, has been more focused on transactional efficiency, procurement and IT standardization. Sunoco has outpaced OI in learning how to be a supply chain leader. Their 2009 numbers speak for themselves.
Table 2: Comparison of 2009 Results of Sonoco Products and Owens Illinios
| DSO | DIO | DPO | DWC | |
| Sonoco Products | 43 | 31 | 38 | 37 |
| Owens Illinois | 67 | 49 | 45 | 71 |
| Industry Average | 42 | 42 | 31 | 63 |
High Tech & Electronics
When it comes to high tech & electronics, my favorite story of a company successfully navigating the downturn is Cisco Systems. Cisco took its bumps in the 2001 downturn, did a mea culpa with a 2.25 billion dollar inventory write-off and swore never again. They redefined supply chain processes under the banner of Customer Value Chain Management (CVSM), successfully integrated 138 acquisitions over 15 years, and built systems to mitigate risks—simulation of 4300 inputs by a team of 10 people—and build supply chain resiliency in the supply chain from the outside-in. Motorola, on the other hand, has focused more on IT standardization and procurement excellence. The numbers speak for themselves.
Table 3: Comparison of 2009 Working Capital Results for Cisco and Motorola
| DSO | DIO | DPO | DWC | |
| Cisco | 48 | 11 | 7 | 52 |
| Motorola | 65 | 22 | 40 | 46 |
| Industry Average | 57 | 23 | 27 | 53 |
Semiconductor
Intel is my pick within the semiconductor industry. Their focus on supply chain talent development and steadily improving supply chain capabilities helped them through the recession. They made a conscious choice to not be aggressive on DPO to ensure a strong supplier base. This focus on supplier development built resiliency into the supply chain. Again, supply chain excellence matters. Contrast Intel with Fairchild Semiconductor. Fairchild Semiconductor has a strong focus on IT systems, is building supply chain talent and is early in the execution of S&OP. Likewise, while Texas Instruments has a deep legacy of supply chain planning excellence, their focus has been more vertical (source/make/deliver) than horizontal (e.g. Sales & Operations Planning, order to cash, etc). Consider the working capital impact of three companies in the same industry at very different points in supply chain maturity.
Table 4: Comparison of Intel, Freescale Semiconductor and Texas Instruments
| DSO | DIO | DPO | DWC | |
| Intel | 24 | 30 | 20 | 35 |
| Fairchild Semiconductor | 41 | 58 | 37 | 63 |
| Texas Industries | 45 | 42 | 18 | 69 |
| Industry Average | 50 | 44 | 33 | 61 |
What is next?
The only thing certain for 2010 is uncertainty. The litmus test—2009 results at the height of the recession—supports that true supply chain excellence matters. However, the best working capital numbers do not make the best supply chain. It is about conscious choice. Just as Intel made a choice about paying suppliers quicker to improve reliability, companies need to make similar choices about the alignment of working capital targets into supply chain strategy, setting targets for each and active management of the horizontal process that underlies each of the metrics. For leaders it is deliberate; for laggards it is largely uncontrolled.
These lessons are even more important as the recession hangs over us like a black cloud with the possibility of a double dip recession. No doubt about it, we are writing case studies in supply chain excellence. If only there was a magic mirror…. I hope that you do not become a supply chain casualty.
What do you think? Did I miss a great story in the data published by CFO magazine? Is there a story of supply chain excellence that you would like to share? Please share your thoughts with the over 2000 readers of this blog.
Footnote:
Definitions of Days of Working Capital (DWC), Days of Sales Outstanding (DSO), Days of Inventory Outstanding(DIO) and Days of Payables Outstanding (DPO) and the numbers contained in this article are sourced from CFO Magazine’s June 2010 article on Fortune 1000 company working capital performance.
The stories shared on these supply chain leaders are based on publically available information: investor calls, public presentations, and public forums. While I have personally worked with all seven of the supply chain teams listed in the article; and there is much more to share on each of these stories, I have limited my comments to publically available information.
The names of specific technology providers are deliberately omitted from this article
Note: This article provided by courtesy of Lora Cecere, Altimeter Group, www.altimetergroup.com
Mix vs Volume Planning: What is your planning time fence telling you?
We’ve all been there. The speaker is providing way too much detail. “Just get to the point!”
What’s the right amount of information?
In forecasting demand and supply, there really is a point of TMI (too much information). Detailed forecasting can be counter-productive. It requires more effort to forecast at a detailed product mix level than at a volume level. Similarly, detailed capacity planning requires more effort than rough cut planning. So where should we draw the line?
The planning horizon dictates the appropriate timeframes for mix versus volume planning. The planning horizon is defined as the period of time needed to purchase and receive raw materials plus the manufacturing time needed to produce finished goods. Within the planning horizon, detailed forecasts and plans are needed by the Operations side of the business to produce the right products in the right quantities at the right times.
Beyond the planning horizon, who needs the details? Nobody. So why are so many companies forecasting in detail so far out? Because they can. Planning tools enable detailed forecasting and easy aggregation well into the future. Yet, this technological capability should not lead to the conclusion that more detail is better. If nobody needs the detail, it is wasteful to dedicate the additional effort to plan across a greater number of items.
The solution is to plan at mix detail inside the time fence and at volume level outside the fence. A good S&OP demand forecasting and planning system should make it easy to plan at appropriate levels across products, customers, geographies AND time periods.
Constrained vs Unconstrained Demand and S&OP
Through the S&OP process, the organization sets a projected business level that balances expected sales and production capabilities with financial and inventory implications. The constrained demand plan reflects a demand plan aligned with the supply plan.
Do we need both?
Many companies find it useful to distinguish and track the gap between unconstrained and constrained demand plans. An increasing gap may indicate lost opportunity to realize sales that exceed current capacity. Companies should scrutinize unconstrained demand signals to verify demand is real versus “pie-in-the-sky”. Long term capital improvements aimed at increasing capacity need to be aligned with realistic projections of future demand.
Finally, the constrained demand plan feeds a consensus plan to which the organization agrees to execute. Our Sales and Operations VPs need to stop fighting and starting aligning. S&OP facilitates this necessary collaboration.
Reduce Surprises. Reduce Inventory. Improve Operational Efficiency. Increase Sales.
Sales and Operations Planning, Collaborative Demand Planning Depends on Bottom-up, Top-down and Statistical Forecasting
An effective S&OP program depends on solid, accurate demand forecasts. Best practice companies do three things well: statistical, top-down and bottom-up forecasting. Many companies are doing one or two of these, but few are doing all three well. Of course, some companies do none. Let’s just say these companies have a huge upside improvement potential.
A statistically generated forecast should use a “best fit” approach to select the mathematical algorithm that minimizes error (such as mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)). The statistical engine should select the best algorithm for each time-phased data series or set of regression data. The resulting forecast should serve as a starting point for bottom-up and top-down forecasts.
Bottom-up forecasts are accumulated from many contributors. A distributed sales force may have hundreds or thousands of contributors. Each contributor has a specific area of expertise such as a specific customer, product or geographic area. The contributor enters her forecasts for her specific area of responsibility. Forecasts from all contributors are summed to capture an overall bottom-up forecast.
Conversely, a top-down approach applies a more centralized view. A small number of forecasters will look at various inputs and generate forecasts. Influencing factors may include market data, economic indicators, and general product and customer trends. Here, too, the statistically generated forecast is a good number from which to start.
The beauty of top-down and bottom-up forecasts is their ability to look at the world from differing vantage points. The folks in the “ivory tower” know important information, but they don’t know everything. The folks in the field have keen insights into their unique areas, but they only see their small piece. The challenge is to capture the small pieces without tainting the field forecaster’s view. In other words, don’t tell the field forecasters the top-down targets. When field forecasters are told what their forecasts are expected to be, they tend to send back values right in line with the top-down values. Such tainted bottom-up forecasts miss the point of gathering field intelligence.
An effective marriage will capture top-down and bottom-up forecasts separately. A management by exception S&OP tool will make comparisons quickly to enable users to analyze critical differences and refine the ultimate consensus driven forecast.
Managing Future Demand in a Rapidly Changing Environment
Early in 2007, during the high tech industry downturn a major supplier of networking and bandwidth management solutions for telecom service providers, launched a global forecasting initiative to more accurately predict future demand for its equipment. The goal was to better align the operations plan with a more accurate picture of customer demand to improve service levels and reduce potential inventory write-offs.
Historically, company planners had cobbled together forecast data from multiple systems — a problem compounded by mergers and acquisitions— using unwieldy spreadsheets, manual processes spanning multiple departments, and only a minimal amount of analysis. The resulting forecasts were often inaccurate. In the post-boom economy, flexible and accurate planning would not only be critical to stabilizing current operations, but would play a center-stage role in strategic decision-making across the entire organization.
However, solving this problem was no easy task. Like many technology companies, the company begin outsourcing in late 2003. With this business model, forecasting and planning product sales became an even greater challenge– 11 major product lines, 50 product families and more than 10,000 SKUs to forecast for hundreds of customers across the globe. In addition, their products were highly configurable and customized, ever-changing with constant updates. And, many of these configurations had a very short lifecycle—additional creating forecasting complexity.
Further, the company had independent planning processes through various departments: Sales created revenue forecasts; finance created revenue targets; and operations did product forecasts–all different processes usually with different measurements that did not tie together. They were manual processes with no timelines, all managed through a combination of SAP r/3 and Excel spreadsheets. It was difficult to maintain any consistency and data integrity. With minimal feedback between the groups, there always were differences in the numbers.
The Global Demand and Order Management team had to manage day-to-day consensus planning for hundreds of products, while supporting senior management efforts to reorient the company’s entire business strategy.
- What would the demand ramp look like in each region and segment?
- What impact would new market entries have on product mix and profitability?
- What effect would canceling or delaying a new product have on revenue streams and customer satisfaction?
Company executives needed answers. In essence, they needed a way to seamlessly integrate and executive on their demand forecasts, enabling every group from marketing and sales to operations and the CFO’s office to drive their actions based on a common understanding of the demand.
The company quickly identified requirements for a completely new business system, one that pushes the proverbial envelope of traditional forecasting and planning system, by including:
- Effective process and change management to support flexible, strategic planning and drive shorter cycle times
- Support for complex product lines, including variable product mixes, hierarchies and life cycles
- Support for diverse business processes to accommodate new product development and acquisition, multiple currencies, and unique rules for material, revenue and sales forecasts
- Cross-functional visibility and participation across sales, marketing, finance and operations, with the ability to offset gaming, normalize disparate reports and support international users
The company evaluation team reviewed their current ERP capabilities as well as supply chain management (SCM) solutions. They found that current resources could not effectively support planning of highly configured products and were biased toward production forecasting, when they needed flexible cross-functional forecasting and planning.
Moreover, the company needed a solution that addressed consensus planning for complex manufacturing that would support both operational efficiency and plan performance management. So after evaluating the demand planning modules by SAP and SCM vendors, the company chose Steelwedge Software (www.steelwedge.com).
Steelwedge offered the company a unique approach which leverages the Steelwedge Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) platform, a combination of best practices gained in over a decade of forecasting and planning research and implementation with dozens of complex manufacturers, plus a next generation technology engineered by enterprise software and business planning veterans.
The company’s Global Demand and Order Management organization first created a standard forecasting and planning process with fixed time schedules and managed all the activities to keep all groups on schedule. There was a dramatic increase in collaboration between the sales, finance and operations departments on information and key assumptions.
Then, the departments began to engage each other in a more systematic fashion. As a result, the need for intensive reconciliation went away and allowed them to move to a monthly process. Every month after the forecast is done—first the sales input is made, then the revenue targets are set, and then the product forecast is done— the teams get together to review any discrepancies and ensure that the departmental plans all in sync and they are all on the same page. Hence, the solution has also allowed them to manage forecast by exception as opposed to each line item.
Today using Steelwedge Software, the company creates a consensus forecast that incorporates direct feeds from the corporate sales opportunity pipeline system and balances the bias of operational systems with quantitative and qualitative input from cross-functional teams. The new process has cut forecast cycle times and allowed staff to focus more time on analysis and planning. The Steelwedge implementation, including integration with the company’s CRM system used for sales pipeline management and with multiple SAP r/3 systems, took less than 16 weeks.
Steelwedge now serves as the central link between company’ CRM and SAP ERP systems. The company has also extended the Steelwedge solution through a web services interface to the company portal—giving users and executives access to current and historical pipeline numbers and forecasting analysis.
With Steelwedge, the company gained greater visibility and predictability in their business and a less costly, more effective way of planning. Not only do operations run more efficiently, during the first phase of the project, the company achieved some significant strategic business results.
- Provide strategic insights that guided critical financial, product management and marketing decisions
- Smoothly managed the integration of major acquisitions including AFC and Vinci Systems driving new revenues and sustaining North American optical market leadership
- Accelerated development of international versions of product lines, leading to significant new accounts
The company’s ‘ initial investment in Steelwedge paid for itself in less than one year. Today, the company reports millions of dollars in annual cost savings in inventory and logistics. In addition to being the critical bridge across organizations and functions, the company expects that its current S&OP automation project with Steelwedge, will save them nearly a million dollars annually, provide an IRR of over 62%, and pay for itself in two years. In addition to improvements in supply chain management metrics arising from the project, the company expects to further facilitate strategic planning, improve Wall Street guidance, and free up key personnel to focus on value-add activities.
And with the assistance of business intelligence provided by Steelwedge Software, the company has revamped its business strategy, targeting high-yield markets, internationalizing key product lines and closing major acquisitions. The result: significant quarter-to-quarter revenue gains and strategic new accounts. As the industry digs out from the crash, the company looks forward with confidence. With strategic forecasting now a top priority, and Steelwedge driving consensus planning, the company is set to control its own destiny.
The company’s’ Global Demand and Order Management organization has developed a highly effective cross-functional forecasting and demand planning process, setting the stage for the company’s to move toward a comprehensive Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) process incorporating extensive supply, demand, and financial feedback from sales, marketing, finance, and operations. The goal of the global S&OP project is to improve executive visibility and drive efficiencies across the organization. In addition to selecting Steelwedge Software to support post-merger planning, the company has also chosen Steelwedge to support their its global S&OP process roll-out.
Forecasting and planning “guru” Dr. J. Tom Mentzer said “Now that the company has adopted best-in-class forecasting and demand management practices, increased its global footprint, and made several major acquisitions, it is natural for company to leverage the industry’s leading business planning software solution, to enable a best-in-class global S&OP process.”
Improving Business Performance with Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP)
Effective Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) measurably improves margins. However, historically, S&OP relied on backward-facing shipment data, subjective opinion, and incomplete operational data. It was overly complex, costly, time-consuming, unreliable and inaccurate.
Now, technology-enabled S&OP processes drive a practical S&OP process, systematically integrating people, processes and data, and restoring confidence in the forecasting and planning processes. Effective technology-enabled S&OP guides participants through a workflow-driven, collaborative process, resulting in a highly accurate aligned forecast and plan that all functions and trading partners can trust. With solutions such as Steelwedge Compass Express S&OP planners can quickly adapt resources to changing conditions, significantly increase margins and dramatically improve revenue predictability. The key is the adoption of a flexible, easy to use, collaborative, and comprehensive solution.
Improve Revenue Visibility
Two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies have no formal way of aligning supply and demand based on corporate-wide inputs. Unscientific approaches result in poor focus of organizational resources like capacity, manufacturing, staffing, sales efforts, finance and budgets. The overall Sales & Operations Planning (S&OP) process suffers in turn. Creating true revenue visibility not only requires strong analytic support, but also the automation of systematic and automated processes for soliciting feedback and creating agreement among multiple parties
Create a Profitable S&OP Plan
Steelwedge empowers executives to evaluate alternate pricing scenarios, product mixes, and configurations. Once the optimum margin forecast scenario has been identified, promotions, product packaging and configuration, and customer targeting decisions can be even further tuned to drive the most profitable demand plan possible. Through participative processes, sales, operations, marketing, and finance are able to work in unison toward a common goal of selling and delivering the most profitable mix of products. The result is enhanced corporate earnings and more efficient operations.
Increase Corporate Accountability
Most planners point solutions don’t allow you to identify, track and archive multiple plans of record, individual adjustments, detailed accountability statistics, and process measurements. For example, the sales staff is inevitably overshooting and undershooting their numbers. However, they typically do it consistently. What’s needed is a system for tracking those consistent fluctuations and archiving the information for analysis.
Support Emerging Manufacturing Initiatives
Steelwedge is the first S&OP solution that addresses vital emerging manufacturing initiatives, revenue visibility issues, and corporate accountability challenges faced by today’s corporations.
Outsourcing Managing outside suppliers or contractors requires a high degree of collaboration and communication, as well as negotiation skill when dealing with competitive bids for limited manufacturing capacity. Accurately understanding inventory liabilities, managing demand and coordinating forecasts is essential for effective outsourcing.
Postponement Planning In order to understand how many configured products will be sold and to “manage the mix,” manufacturing companies need to dynamically manage product attach rates and connect sales pipeline data to customer buying patterns that are based on historical estimates and analysis of item/component demand.
Lean Manufacturing There is a misconception that with just-in-time (JIT) inventory there is no inventory and hence no need for a forecast. In actuality, accurate forecasts are more important than ever. Suppliers need to know what orders to expect, and specialized components often have long lead times and are not always in inventory. Moreover, regardless of short-term operational requirements, product management, marketing and finance need to plan and invest based on a common set of future assumptions.
Mix Management In today’s volative environment, companies are struggling to understand and deliver the right mix of products, components, and packages. Retailer’s are increasingly bundling products to reduce costs and increase margins while technology players are becoming highly focused on delivering the exact mix of components required by their clients. In this envrionment, the need for an S&OP process that manages product mix and assortment is crucial.
Receive Blog Updates Via Email
Categories
Recent Posts
Archives
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2006
Tag Cloud
Demand Forecasting (30)
Managing in a Recession (33)
Sales & Operations Planning (95)
Sales Forecasting (40)
Steelwedge User Forum (20)
Steelwedge Webinar (12)
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.