2014 sales marketing - at&t business promotion data, is definitely making sales ... data, and...

New research provides a progress update for initiatives in:• TradePromotionManagement• DownstreamData• ConsumerEngagement• S&OP

ASupplementTo ConsumerGoodsTechnology

study sponsors:

2 014 s a l e s a n d

m a r k e t i n gr e p o r t

title sponsor: presented by:

AT&T offers a comprehensive portfolio of innovative solutions for global CPG firms. Visit www.att.com/retailbusiness

© 2014 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property.

6663 Full page ad 3 5/1/14 May 1, 2014 11:33 AM Page 1

RIS_CGT_Temp.indd 1 5/6/14 2:08 PM

S M 4 | cgt | 2014 sales and marketing report

sm6 the state of things an overview of where sales and marketing initiatives fit in among a consumer goods company’s top business priorities and complex challenges.

sm10 trade Promotion management despite persistent impediments, manufacturers report progress and ponder tpo’s contribution to integrated Business planning.

sm14 downstream data manufacturers and retailers are challenged to leverage new forms of data, while not losing sight of progress still needed around more traditional forms of downstream data.

sm18 direct to consumer survey results indicate that a marketing relationship is favored over a direct commercial one, but smart companies will explore the mechanisms to facilitate direct-to-consumer sales.

sm22 s&oP idC explores the interesting notion of integrated Business planning and its interrelationship with s&op.

C o n t e n t s

edit note at idC manufacturing insights, we know that sales and marketing organizations are working hard to serve their retail customers and engage with consumers. Join us in a conversation about some of the most dis-cussed challenges in the industry — trade promotions, downstream data, con-sumer engagement and keeping products on the shelf with sales and operations planning. our report shows that sometimes change is slow, but we believe 2014 is going to be the year many organizations start to see even more progress from their investments in sales and marketing efforts, making technology, market visibility and expertise work together.

—kim knickle , IDC ManufaCturIng InsIghts

TECHNOLOGY GROUP

www.edgellcommunications.com

printed in

the u.S.a.

MeMber

MeMber

Publisheralbert Guffanti [email protected]

editorialexecutive editor: Kara Romanow [email protected]

editor: Ali Ackerman Orr [email protected]

assistant editor: Alarice Padilla [email protected]

salesassociate publisher: Diana Masurack Mann [email protected]

Senior account Manager: Bill Little [email protected]

assistant to publisher: Jen Johnson [email protected]

art and ProductionCreative director: Colette Magliaro [email protected]

art director: Pamela C. Ravetier [email protected]

production Manager: Pat Wisser [email protected]

online mediaVice president of Media integration: Rob Keenan [email protected]

director of Lead Generation & audience development: Jason Ward [email protected]

Web development Manager: Scott Ernst [email protected]

Online project Manager: Whitney Ryerson [email protected]

marketing/events/circulationdirector, event planning: Patricia Benkner [email protected]

director, event Content: John Hall [email protected]

Circulation Manager: Jeffrey Zabe [email protected]

Subscriptions: 978-671-0449

reprints: [email protected], 212-221-9595

corPorateCeO/Chairman: Gabriele A. Edgell [email protected]

president: Gerald C. Ryerson [email protected]

Vice president: John Chiego [email protected]

Founder: Douglas C. Edgell, 1951-1998

corPorate officeEdgell Communications 4 Middlebury Boulevard Randolph, NJ 07869-1111 (973) 607-1300 • Fax (973) 607-1395 www.consumergoods.com

2 014 s a l e s a n d

m a r k e t i n gr e p o r t


2 014 s a l e s a n d m a r k e t i n g r e p o r t

0 10 20 30 40 50

42.6%

37.4%

35.2%

Expand into new geographic regions/countries

Improve customer acquisition and retention

Introduce new and/or improved products and services

INITIATIVE

42.6

37.4

35.2

figure 1: top business initiatives in consumer ProductsQ. In 2013, which of the following initiatives will be significant in driving IT investments at your organization? Multiple responses allowed

onsumer goods (CG) manufacturers tell us that their top three business initiatives are expanding their geo-graphic reach, improving customer acquisition and retention, and intro-

ducing new products and services (Figure 1). In each of these initiatives, sales and marketing plays a fundamental role in serving the “5 I” con-sumer — instrumented with mobile devices, in-formed with access to the Internet on their devices, interconnected in social communities, in place in stores or wherever else they might be, and finally, immediate in their ability to take action. This is the first time we’ve seen expanding regions at the top of the list, and we think it’s exactly because consumers now possess all of these 5 I attributes.

We know that increasing the effectiveness and productivity of sales and marketing in today’s mar-ket is the result of continued investments in people, process and technology. Our IDC research finds that application spend and customer relationship management (CRM) spend show healthy growth from 2013 to 2016 (Figure 2). Within the CRM seg-ment, the strongest growth is in marketing auto-mation (Figure 3). These investments should ulti-mately bring greater automation, more consistent processes and easier access to relevant information.

Over the last few years, we’ve witnessed an increasing use of new technologies such as big data and analytics, cloud, mobile and social in how CG companies engage with their customers and consumers. While all of these technologies are important to sales and marketing, we can’t get around the fact that social, in the form of social tools, social media and social networks, has funda-mentally changed the way CG manufacturers can work with and connect with the consumer and the retail customer. We can see that connection in the fact that integrating social and CRM is more com-mon than any other type of integration (Figure 4).

Adding social interactions with consumers and among consumers to more traditional data

the state of thingssales and marketing plays fundamental role in meeting Business priorities and serving the “5 i” Consumer • BY KIM KNICKLe

figure 2: u.s. consumer Packaged goods it spending, 2013–2016 ($m)

tYpe OF Spend 2013 2014 2015 2016 2013-2016 CaGr %

application Spend 5,001.67 5,277.21 5,575.00 5,900.11 5.7%

CrM applications 574.38 604.91 637.00 668.06 5.2%

Share of CrM applications in application it spend (%)

11.5% 11.5% 11.4% 11.3%

Source: idC Manufacturing insights it Spending Guide Mi243424, 2013

this is the first time that expanding regions ranks as a top business priority, perhaps because consumers now possess all of the “5 i” attributes.

Source: 2013 idC Global technology and industry research Organization it Survey



sources, like transactional (downstream) data and promotion data, is definitely making sales and marketing processes and decisions both more complex and more data rich. That’s why we’ll also share some of our thoughts on how important it is to use new tools to analyze that data. But we all know that technology is just an enabler, and it’s how companies apply the tech-nology in their organizations for business value that really matters. For the rest of this report, we explore how CG manufacturers are finding opportunities for improved sales and marketing across business functions and technologies in four key areas:

1 The progress CG manufacturers are making in Trade Promotion Management and its contri-bution to Integrated Business Planning;

2 How complementing Downstream Data with other data and big data analytics can improve demand visibility to better manage volatility and drive customer service improvements;

3 How Direct-to-Consumer initiatives continue to evolve by leveraging social and mobile, to strengthen brand marketing and sales with per-sonalization and consumer experience benefits;

4 How Sales & Operations Planning still faces orchestration challenges, but as it evolves, will better represent the perspectives of sales and supply chain as one approach.

As in years past, we’ve based our analysis in this report on ongoing conversations and research with IDC Manufacturing Insights clients, IT and vertical industry business priority and spending data, and our 2014 Sales & Marketing Survey results. We expect to see continuing progress in all of these areas as they are among the key initiatives that we believe will enable future sales growth and continued expansion into new markets, improved customer service performance, and greater produc-tivity through sales and marketing.

the state of things

figure 3: americas crm applications revenue by segment, 2013–2016 ($m)

appLiCatiOn 2013 2014 2015 2016 2013-2016 CaGr %

Marketing automation 3,177.50 3,486.50 3,794.20 4,119.50 9%

Sales automation 3,708.00 4,005.60 4,287.80 4,579.40 7.3%

Customer Service 2,141.00 2,311.80 2,494.00 2,684.80 7.8%

Contact Center 4,225.80 4,413.50 4,601.30 4,805.20 4.4%

Source: idC Manufacturing insights and idC 241293, 2013

34%

33.2%

25.3%

CRM

ERP

Analytics

21.9%Customer support

SYSTEM

34

33.2

25.3

21.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

figure 4: connecting customer detailsQ. Which internal systems do you currently integrate with your social software tools? Multiple responses allowed

While technologies are important to sales and marketing, social has fundamentally changed the way consumer goods manufacturers connect with the consumer and the retail customer.


S M 1 0 | cgt | 2014 sales and marketing report


he practice of using trade promotion funds to temporarily “buy down” the selling price of a consumer product has been and continues to be a major vehicle for CG companies to drive sales volume.

Indeed, the use of promotional funds is so perva-sive that for some product categories, the majority of sales are driven by promotions and the under-lying baseline volume can be difficult to assess.

Given the contribution trade promotion funds make to CG companies’ performance and the large expense this approach places on the P&L, manufacturers are working to improve and increase their insights into their performance (transform the process; guarantee outcomes; targeted results). The availability of purpose-built tools, the massive amount of data now cap-tured and a desire to better integrate promotional planning into the broader notion of S&OP have resulted in many businesses looking to truly optimize rather than just manage the process.

In last year’s discussion of trade promotions, we proposed a maturity progression from basic spend management to truly collaborative promo-tion optimization. As with all maturity models, most companies sit in the middle; with only a few having moved up into the most advanced stages. Impediments to effective promotional assessment still exist, with the barriers indicated in Figure 5.

This year’s survey data is a bit of a mixed bag. Forecasting baseline and access to promo-tions data continue to decline as an impediment, which is certainly good news; yet more compa-nies this year indicated they don’t have an effec-tive tool in place versus last. We do have a larger number of smaller company responses in this year’s data, which may explain the difference. We also hear, anecdotally, that many companies are rethinking internally-developed TPM systems in favor of commercially available alternatives from the major software vendors, which could also help to explain the difference.

In terms of improving trade promotions per-

trade promotion managementplenty of improvement opportunities exist despite impediments • By Simon ElliS

figure 5: impediments to effective Promotional assessmentQ: What impediments at your company, if any, do you see preventing better assessment of trade promotions? Multiple responses allowed

iMpediMent 2014 2013 2012

the forecast baseline is difficult to define, so promotional lift is debatable.

35.2% 36.8% 58%

the data from promotions is either difficult to access or inaccurate.

35.2% 42.1% 39%

no impediments; this process is a core competency for us.

14.8% 26.3% 21%

We do not have an effective tool in place. 46.3% 36.8% 13%

tpM is a sales activity. 14.8% 15.8% 4%

Source: idC Manufacturing insights and CGT, 2014

81.6%50%

73.7%44.4%

68.4%42.6%

52.6%40.7%

21.1%20.4%

We are collaborating internallyto design better promotions.

We are working with our retail customersto design better promotions.

We have improved the way we analyze the results so we can design better promotions.

We are using new technologies for our tradepromotions management and optimization.

We are using new channelsfor our trade promotions.

IMPROVEMENT TACTIC

81.6 50

73.7 44.4

68.4 42.6

52.6 40.7

21.1 20.4

2013 2014

0 20 40 60 80 100

figure 6: improving the Performance of trade PromotionsQ. How are you improving your trade promotion performance? Multiple responses allowed




formance, we see similarly ranked responses as prior years, even though the absolute rankings are down across the board (Figure 6). Again, this could be skewed by a higher number of smaller compa-nies, but it may also be that many companies have worked through these improvements already and taken the “low hanging fruit” such that further improvements are now more difficult to get. We would tend to dismiss that at IDC Manufacturing Insights, as our view is that there are plenty of improvement opportunities remaining.

One such opportunity is to better leverage the value of big data and analytics. Technology plays a key role in delivering true collaborative trade promotion optimization, particularly in the abil-

trade promotion management

figure 8: integrated business Planning

44.8%

40.3%

28.4%

Generate new revenue streams

Enhance products and/or services

Increase operational efficiencies

VALUE

44.8

40.3

28.4

0 10 20 30 40 50

figure 7: business value of big dataQ. For these technologies that your company is researching, piloting or currently using, what is the business value you expect to gain for your organization? Multiple responses allowed

SC pLan

MktG.pLan Fin. pLan

SaLeS pLan npdi pLan

Supply Chain

Marketing Finance

r&dSales S&OP

Poor Forecast Accuracy, TPM

Master Data Accuracy, Design-for-Supply Chain, Flexibility

Product Plan, Promotional Plan, Account Plan, Share-of-Voice

Innovation Performance and Churn

R&D Budget, Innovation Funnel, COGS Challengestrade

promotion planning




0 20 40 60 80 100

78 60.7

89 67.9

100 73.2

25 21.4

78%60.7%

89%67.9%

100%73.2%

We receive the data we need from retailer portals.

We receive data directly from retailers.

We receive data from a third-party provider.

METHOD 2013 2014

e’ve been talking about the use of downstream data for what seems like an eternity — when it’s only actually

been a decade! Long enough to have debated its merits and shortcomings, but also long enough to recognize that

the ability to “see” farther down into consumer demand is transformative. Yet, I think most of us still consider downstream data to be in the early stages of maturity. Two recent developments in the CG supply chain reinforce the fact that the use of downstream data is incred-ibly critical: • First, demand is more unpredictable than ever, and many companies

have seen a decline in forecasting accuracy. Better algorithms and clev-er math can certainly help, but we’d argue those only do marginally.

• Second, more and more companies are realizing that customer/con-sumer-centricity ought to be the “first principle” of their supply chains. But to make better use of downstream data, one has to actually be

able to get downstream data, and frankly, the methods of disbursement haven’t really moved much for years (Figure 9).

When we rank the various ways in which consumer products com-panies get this data, we can see that the sources of data have not really changed much, and fewer companies are noting receipt from, for example, the retailer (Figure 10).

Receiving data from a third party continues to be the major source; however, the realities of how most third-party providers manage the data and the fact that it’s not typically usable in real time minimizes the value for service performance. The fact of the matter is that by 2014, we really

downstream dataneW developments make this a hot topiC onCe again • By Simon ElliS

figure 9: methods for receiving downstream dataQ. How do you receive downstream data for your products?Multiple responses allowed

ity to manage these large amounts of data, and to manage them quickly — often in real time. While an optimized process will use historical performance data to generate an improved “fore-cast” for all promotions, it is still critical to have real-time visibility into the performance to ensure that sales data is quickly analyzed to ensure that additional inventory is available as required.

Certainly looking at the responses to the value from big data in Figure 7, we see direct linkages to the trade promotion process — whether using advanced analytics to drive increased promo-tion-related sales or the ability to better manage promotions for greater efficiency and lift.

When considering the future of the trade pro-motion process, the end game will always be a moving target. As soon as a CG company arrives at the point of collaborative promotional optimi-zation, the most mature stage, there will be new opportunities to seize. Three things immediately spring to mind. First, with the growing power of technology to analyze data quickly and provide usable insights in real time, there are more ways to engage consumers in the promotional process and more forms for promotions to take. Second, the omnichannel shopper is going to expect to see promotions across channels in which they shop, whether in store, online or some hybrid of the two. Third, as CG companies take a broader view of planning, trade promotion optimization will be increasingly viewed as a key part of the Integrated Business Planning (IBP) process. This last point is particularly interesting (Figure 8).

trade promotion management

the end game of trade promotion processes will always be a moving

target. once consumer goods companies

arrive at the point of collaborative pro-

motional optimization, there will be new

opportunities to seize. Source: idC Manufacturing insights and CGT, 2014



15.7%

11%

9.5%

Transactional data

Text from non-socialnetwork sources

Machine or devicegenerated sensor data

8.4%

6.6%

Web logs

Video

5.4%

3.4%

4.2%

GPS data from mobile devices

Audio

Chatter on social networks (unstructured data)

TYPE OF DATA

15.7

11

9.5

8.4

6.6

5.4

4.2

3.4

0 5 10 15 20

figure 11: top data types captured and analyzed in consumer ProductsQ. What types of data are or will be captured and analyzed today or in the next 12 months? Multiple responses allowed

would have expected a predominant amount of this data to come directly from the retailer.

There is an 80:20 rule in play here — most CG companies simply aren’t going to bother with downstream data much be-low their top 20 retail customers. Yet, our results clearly suggest that even amongst the top 20, there is significant progress still to be made in direct-sourcing downstream data. I’m not one to spend a lot of time assigning blame, but the reality is that both manufacturers and retailers bear responsibility. Many retailers have not invested in the technical capabilities to enable portals or efficient direct sharing; manufacturers have not adequately demonstrated the benefits inherent to downstream data to fa-cilitate these investments.

Before “throwing the baby out with the bath water”, it is clear that things are improving, just perhaps not to the degree that we might have expected five years ago. Among the downstream data received by the various sources, data from the retailer has increased, whether provided directly or via portal access (up in total from about 50 percent in 2013 to 68 percent in 2014) and that is clearly good news, but it should be higher. In my days in the industry, it was my view that downstream data really needed to be at or around 75 percent to provide the maximum impact — I thought we’d have been there by now. I don’t have much doubt that the industry will get there, particularly as data management and analytics capabilities get so much better — “all dressed up and nowhere to go” is not a particularly good refrain!

Enough criticism, though, let’s take a look to the future. While traditional transactional data still has a ways to go, and remains the single most analyzed forms of data (Figure 11), CG companies are looking at some of the more interesting emerg-ing forms of downstream data. Some of these are new forms of quantifiable data, things like machine or mobile device gener-ated, which can be used to directly affect quantitative demand forecasts and supply plans. But most are unstructured forms of data that cannot so easily be used to adjust forecasts. In some cases, we are seeing these forms of data used to “attenuate” a forecast. In other cases, they are used more for marketing and product refinement purposes.

As we move into this brave new world of social media data, it is incumbent on both manufacturers and retailers to leverage these new forms of data as best they can, but also to not sight of progress still needing to be made around more traditional forms of downstream data.

downstream data

69.4%54.2%

22.2%18.8%

2.8%14.6%

We receive data from a third-party provider.

We receive data directly from retailers.

We receive the data we need from retailer portals.

METHOD 2013 2014

69.4 54.2

22.2 18.8

2.8 14.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

figure 10: methods for receiving majority of downstream dataQ. How do you receive the majority of the downstream data for your products?





his is a fascinating topic for continuing discussion, as it tends to inflame passions — from both retailers and from CG manufacturers. As we have noted in past years, technological progress and retailer focus on private label/brand products has conspired to force

manufacturers to explore direct to consumer. Yet, the approach has been changing — from direct commercial relationships (selling direct) to one characterized more by a marketing re-lationship than a direct commercial one. That hasn’t stopped leading companies, like Procter & Gamble, from exploring potential approaches, and partnerships (efforts recently an-nounced with Amazon), to facilitate direct to consumer. But for most companies, the preferred future appears to be to engage with consumers on a brand and marketing level, but leave the actual selling to traditional channels. This approach, if proven true through the passage of time, seems visionary and foolish, paradoxically both at the same time.

CG companies are not retailers, and while an increasing number of them are actually looking at opening their own stores (note the percent doubling since 2012), this is neither a trivial undertaking nor one that necessarily leverages core competen-cies. So, engaging with the consumer through direct marketing and sales efforts does make sense and is underpinned with core competencies in those disciplines. Yet, consumers have clearly shown that they want choice, and this choice is reflected in a de-

sire to purchase their products across a broad range of channels — the ubiquitous omnichannel. The eventual reality may end up being both: The majority of direct to consumer is about brand marketing and sales, but the ability to actually buy the product directly is there for consumers who really want it!

Asking CG companies about their direct-to-consumer efforts “shouts” indecision — companies appear to be unclear about what really to do. As summarized in Figure 12, we have seen a gradual decline in companies selling direct to consumer since 2012, and an increase in companies saying they have no plans to do so. To be fair, though, 40 percent who say they have “no plans” also means that 60 percent do. We also see a decline in the number of companies planning to sell direct to consumer within the next two years.

direct to Consumerthe Continuing evolution of Consumer engagement • By Simon ElliS

STATUS

Selling D2C today60%

58%53.7%

No plans for D2C33%

28%40.7%

Planning to sell D2Cin next two years

7%14%

5.6%

2012 2013 2014

60 58 53.7

33 28 40.7

7 14 5.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

figure 12: direct-to-consumer salesQ. Are you currently selling products directly to consumers?

APPROACH

Yes, through third-party Internet sites.41%42%

22.2%

Yes, through our own web site.33%

39%33.3%

Yes, through our own physical retail outlets.

11%19%20.4%

2012 2013 2014

41 42 22.2

33 39 33.3

11 19 20.4

0 10 20 30 40 50

figure 13: direct-to-consumer sales channelsQ. How are you currently selling products directly to consumers?

technological progress and the retailer’s focus on private label brands have forced manufacturers to explore direct to consumer.

Source: idC Manufacturing insights and CGT, 2014 Source: idC Manufacturing insights and CGT, 2014



If we look at the mechanisms through which companies would sell their products, we again see a decline in two of the three alternatives (Figure 13). Selling “directly through third-party sites” has declined the most, but so has selling “through our own web site”. The only approach that has grown slightly, as we noted previously, is selling “through our own physical retail outlets”.

We are dealing with a modest sample size in this survey, so the results must be tempered by that fact, but the results from the questions do support what we are hearing anecdotally in the industry — that a marketing relationship is favored over a direct commercial one. The smart companies will explore the mechanisms to facilitate direct consumer sales, just in case and even if they also believe that a direct marketing relationship is the more likely course.

This begs the question of the inherent value of a marketing relationship — and its linkage to social customer experiences. We asked two questions, the results of which are summarized in Figures 14 and 15, about the linkage between business value and “social customer experience” and between business value and “social innova-tion management”. The former is essentially the role that social interactions play in the overall brand relationship; the latter is the role social interactions play in the brand innovation process.

The top responses are similar. The overall relationship with the consumer is about generat-ing greater levels of customer loyalty first, while also enhancing products and services. The role of social innovation management is, as one would expect, more about the role and performance of the actual products in enhancing and improving the user experience.

As CG companies continue to explore the right approach for direct to consumer, it seems reason-able to think that social business technologies and engagements will play a huge role in facilitating success. It also seems wise to at least explore the available options for selling directly to the con-sumer, should such capability end being impor-tant to the future performance of the business.

direct to Consumer

45.6%

44.1%

38.2%

Garner greater customer loyalty



22.1%More effectively manage suppliers

BUSINESS VALUE

45.6

44.1

38.2

22.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

figure 14: top business values of social customer experienceQ. What is the business value you expect to gain for your organization for social customer experience initiatives? Multiple responses allowed

47.8%

38.8%

35.8%


Garner greater customer loyalty


22.4%Improve human capital management

BUSINESS VALUE

47.8

38.8

35.8

22.4

0 10 20 30 40 50

figure 15: top business values of social innovation managementQ. What is the business value you expect to gain for your organization for social innovation management initiatives? Multiple responses allowed

asking consumer goods companies about their direct-to-consumer efforts “shouts” indecision. Companies appear to be unclear about their approach.





Sales & Operations Planning (S&OP) has suffered from an extreme case of “alphabet soup” over its long lifetime. Per-haps this is to justify repetitive implementations (“we are re-implementing S&OP as SI&OP because of the key role of inventory”) or a desire to engage at a broader level. We have seen, in no particular order S&OP, SI&OP, SM&OP (where M = Marketing) and Integrated Business Planning (IBP). While we here at IDC Manufacturing Insights find this pursuit of the perfect acronym generally a bit silly, the notion of IBP and its interrelationship with S&OP is actually quite interesting, and we would like to explore it here.

One of the core challenges that we see in CG organizations is the tension between the supply and demand sides of the supply chain. Demand is becoming more and more volatile and forecast accuracy is declining; at the same time global supply is becoming more complex and long lead times are commonplace. Volatile demand and extending supply are actually working against each other — particularly where the delivery of service obliga-tions are concerned. This is illustrated in Figure 16.

The broader notion of IBP, as distinct from S&OP, is at the head of the list in terms of ways to bridge gaps between supply and demand. At the core, it is about managing the forecast, but also about managing the ability of the business to respond rapidly to changes in either the internal or external environment — across multiple functions. IBP (illustrated previously in Figure 8) is the holistic business process that connects all the various planning functions across an entire organization to enable the alignment of operational and financial performance goals. In the context of IBP, S&OP is the key orchestrating capability that sits on top of, and spans across, the demand, supply and fulfillment capabilities of the business to ensure that a consensus plan is reached and that all constituents in the business are operating against a common set of targets. S&OP is a critical component of IBP, just like demand or supply planning:• S&OP – Key orchestrating capability; “Are we all working

to the same targets?”• Demand Sensing & Planning – Used synonymously, but a

key capability to manage demand volatility and forecast-

s&opthe Journey toWard integrated Business planning • By Simon ElliS

IBP - Balance Forecasting and Responsiveness (Agility)

Complexity Management

Agile Inventory

Cost Control

Service Centricity

Risk Management

Technology Pillars: Cloud, Big Data/Analytics, Mobility, Social Business

Supply Complexity

demand Volatility

product and Service proliferation

figure 16: disconnects between demand and supply sides of supply chain



ing improvements; “Are we capturing the best demand signal possible?”

• Supply Planning – MRP and constraint analysis; “What are our supply limitations, and can we support the proposed business plans?”

• Production Planning – Factory scheduling and line plan-ning; “What and when do we make on which lines?”At the same time, fulfillment, inventory management and

network optimization are all part of the integrated planning process. Our objection to adding inventory to the acronym (thus SI&OP) is that it has always been part of the operational process, just as network design and supply management are — it is unnecessarily redundant. S&OP is, by its very nature, a supply-chain-centric process, with critical input from other functions, yes, but ultimately owned by the supply chain. It essentially tries to solve the lack of coordination between business functions.

Yet, as we stated earlier, IBP is much more than that, it is the holistic business process that connects all the various planning

functions across an entire organization to enable the alignment of operational and financial performance goals. It is not just supply chain planning, but how far does it go? Is it also product planning, customer planning and financial planning?

At IDC Manufacturing Insights, we’d argue that it is all of these things (Figure 17). The overall ability for a consumer products company to plan the business, whether at a strategic, tactical or operational level, depends upon the timely delivery of a marketing plan, a sales plan, a supply chain plan and a financial plan. All are required, but they must all be done in the context of each other and be strategically aligned. For ex-ample, the process of setting working capital targets cannot be done in a vacuum. It must take into account factory capacity and desired service levels. Very often we see companies whose capacity and working capital targets are incompatible with their service aspirations — and then they wonder why they missed. S&OP manages the operational side of the business, but it does not address the broader, cross-functional decisions that are managed by the IBP process.

s&op

figure 17: holistic integrated business Planning

CuStOMer pLanninG

prOduCt pLanninG

FinanCiaL pLanninG

• Demand Sensing

• Demand Forecasting

• Supply Planning

• Fast Planning/MRP

• Production Planning

• Factory Scheduling

• Order Management

• Warehousing

• Transportation

deMand SuppLY FuLFiLLMent

Sales & Operations planning

analytics

inventory Management & Optimization

network Optimization

2014 sales marketing - at&t business promotion data, is definitely making sales ... data, and...

Documents