In Search of Supply Chain Excellence

Insights from Four Years of Quantitative Research 03/18/2016

By Lora Cecere

Founder and CEO Supply Chain Insights LLC

Page 2

Contents

Research Methodology

Disclosure

Executive Summary

Supply Chain Strategy and the

Definition of Supply Chain Excellence

Alignment

Agility

Supply Chain Visibility

Sales and Operations Planning

Supply Chain Talent and Building Core Capabilities

Data and IT Strategies

Recommendations and Insights

Conclusion

Terms to Know

Appendix

Additional Reading

About Supply Chain Insights LLC

About Lora Cecere

Endnotes

3 4 5

7 8

10 12 17 20 22 24 25 26 28 33 34 34 35

Page 3

Research Methodology Research is our business. As a group, we triangulate data from multiple sources, analyze for insights,

and share with supply chain leaders to drive continuous learning. This sharing takes different forms:

webinars; roundtables; formal networking sessions; and private strategy days. We archive these

results and drive discussions in our public community Beet Fusion.

We are committed to delivering thought-leading content for the supply chain leader. Our goal is to be

the first place for visionaries to turn to gain unique insights. The research for this report is consistent

with delivering on this commitment.

This is a summary report. Consistent with principles of the Central Limit Theorem, we are trying hard

to understand the trends of the larger supply chain population over this period of time. To build the

insights for this analysis we mined data from identical questions asked in 28 quantitative studies from

2147 respondents. The surveys were tendered over the course of the past four years. The details of

these studies are shared in Figure 1, and the relevant demographic data is included in the Appendix

at the end of the report.

Figure 1. Overview of Research Used to Drive the Insights for this Report

Page 4

To ensure clarity of the research, each finding is presented as an image. At the bottom of each image

the reader will find the question asked in the research and the number of respondents answering the

studies. Since each survey had a different number of respondents, the number of completed surveys

by question will vary.

In this report we attempt to define not only the ‘What’, but also the ‘So what’. For example, we report

progress on supply chain characteristics like agility, S&OP maturity, alignment, and IT project

success. However, as we study each area, we not only report on the data of the survey responses,

but we also attempt to use the research to define the characteristics of successful companies. The

report is organized into four research areas—Process/Strategy, Building Supply Chain Talent,

Organizational Core Competency, and Success with IT Infrastructure—where we had sufficient data.

When analyzing the data please keep in mind that this data has a bias for large companies (average

of $5 billion in annual revenues) with supply chain teams in Europe and North America. The data is

more representative of more mature supply chain organizations and less applicable to teams evolving

in the emerging economies of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South and Central America.

Disclosure Your trust is important to us. In our business we are open and transparent about our financial

relationships. In this research process we never share the names of respondents and/or give

attribution to open-ended comments collected in the research.

Our philosophy is “You give to us, and we give to you.” We collect data from a private network of

qualified participants and openly share the results. Each participant in the research is carefully

screened against demographic and qualifying criteria.

To drive participation, each respondent of the research always receives the final reports; and, if

interested, we share insights from the studies in a complimentary one-hour phone call with supply

chain teams or group virtual roundtable discussions.

This report is written and shared using the principles of Open Content research. It is intended for you

to read and share freely with your colleagues and through social channels like LinkedIn, Facebook

and Twitter. When you use the report, or the embedded graphics, all we ask for in return is attribution.

We publish under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United

States and our citation policy is outlined on the Supply Chain Insights Website.

Page 5

Executive Summary No two supply chains are alike. While business is changing quickly, the supply chain processes are

evolving slowly. The average supply chain organization is 14-years old, and as is shown in Figure 2,

one out of three companies state that there is room for improvement in their supply chain.

Figure 2. Descriptors Used by Supply Chain Leaders to Describe Their Supply Chains

While companies desire a supply chain that is more aligned, fast, agile, and proactive, today the

supply chain is controlled and becoming more global. In the building of today’s supply chain, as will

be seen in this report, the tightly integrated IT infrastructure defined in the last two decades is an

impediment to building an agile, proactive and aligned supply chain. In Figure 3 we contrast the

current state of the supply chain with the desired state of supply chain leaders.

Page 6

Figure 3. Supply Chain Descriptors: Current State versus Desired Operation

As shown in Figure 3, while supply chain leaders desire a more proactive, aligned and faster supply

chain, these are areas for improvement. The current supply chain is controlled and global, but with

significant opportunity for improvement. Ironically, despite the gaps in overall performance, many

supply chain leaders term current practices as “best practices.” In this report we challenge the status

quo. We do this by teasing out the data to understand business drivers. For example, in Table 1 we

can see that a company which rates itself as “having a supply chain working well” is more likely to be

in the process industry, and have a supply chain organization where manufacturing reports to the

overall supply chain leader. In addition, within the organization there is a greater understanding of the

supply chain by the executive leadership team, stronger alignment of metrics cross-functionally,

stronger capabilities in supply chain visibility, and the organization is better at managing change. The

companies that outperform are also better at accessing and using data.

It is also significant to note that we do not find a correlation between “working well” and the presence

of a Supply Chain Center of Excellence, fewer ERP instances, or maturity in Sales and Operations

planning. The reason? These processes and practices are evolving.

Page 7

Table 1. Characteristics of Companies with Supply Chains Working Well

To make this report actionable for the business executive, in a similar pattern as this analysis, in each

section we dig deep. To do this we first describe the current state of the market and then provide

research findings from leaders that are outperforming. At the end of the report we share

recommendations and insights for implementation.

Supply Chain Strategy and the Definition of Supply Chain Excellence Driving supply chain excellence is easier said than done. The first step is a clear definition. The

second is managing the supply chain as a complex system with a set of complex, nonlinear

relationships. The third is driving organizational alignment, and the fourth is the implementation of

strategies to improve agility. (To drive agility, companies need to realize that the efficient supply chain

may not be the most effective.)

While clarity of strategy does not rank as one of the top areas of business pain in Figure 4, many of

the top issues in the chart are symptoms of the lack of a clear strategy. This includes cross-functional

Page 8

alignment, the lack of skilled people to perform the job, and an understanding of the supply chain by

the executive team.

In addition, as will be seen in this report, the issues of demand and supply visibility, coupled with the

lack of supply chain visibility and availability to get to data, are symptoms of strategic decisions on IT

spending. While increasing volatility is an issue, you will see in this report that it is also a galvanizing

force for alignment and IT success.

Figure 4. Areas of Supply Chain Pain for the Supply Chain Leader

Alignment Companies that report organizational alignment as one of the top five areas of business pain are

more likely to describe their supply chains as cautious and inside-out. Ironically, companies with

greater demand and supply volatility have greater alignment. The reason? It is necessary to survive.

As shown in Figure 5, the largest gap within the organization is between the commercial teams of

sales and marketing, and operations. The gap between operations and IT is the second largest area

for improvement.

Page 9

Figure 5. Overview of Organizational Alignment

As shown in Table 2, when the organization has experienced higher levels of demand and supply

volatility, and has invested in strong S&OP capabilities, the organization is more aligned.

Table 2. Characteristics of Companies by Degree of Alignment between Sales and Operations

Page 10

Alignment does not just happen. It requires change management and leadership. Organizations align

more easily when there is clarity on customer priorities and requirements, and incentives are jointly

held by the functions within the organization. When companies have experienced substantial pain

due to market shifts, or inventory write-offs due to demand fluctuations, the organization is more likely

to build alignment across the commercial teams and operations.

Agility Within a corporation the term ‘agility’ can have many different meanings. For the purpose of this

report, we define ‘supply chain agility’ as the ability of the organization to have the same cost, quality

and customer service given the level of demand and supply volatility. In the definition of supply chain

strategy, companies must define agility very carefully.

We also find in the research that companies that have greater maturity with S&OP within the

organization also have made better progress in building an agile supply chain. It is a case of when the

going gets tough, the tough get going.

Agility does not just happen. It requires careful design and execution of a supply chain strategy. The

design of the agile supply chain requires a redefinition of supply chain strategy. By definition, the

efficient supply chain is not the most agile. One of the issues in driving organizational agility is the

alignment of the finance group on the optimal supply chain outcome. The finance group has a natural

bias to push for the efficient supply chain with the lowest cost per unit.

If the finance group, in the face of extreme demand and supply volatility, insists on the delivery of the

lowest cost per unit, the organization will never be agile or aligned. The two characteristics go hand-

in-hand.

Within the company, inventory is a battleground. To combat this bias, inventory policy is important—

implementation of postponement strategies, form and function of inventory, pre-purchase of raw

materials, and definition of decoupling points—to delivering the agile supply chain. Companies

subject to monthly changes in inventory targets—with an ever-changing goal at the end of the quarter

to meet financial targets—struggle to deliver the agile supply chain.

Despite this barrier with cross-functional alignment with finance, companies have made impressive

progress. As shown in Figure 6, the rate of improvement in agility is greater when viewed through a

five-year lens than one-year view.

Page 11

Figure 6. Changes in Supply Chain Agility Over Time

Companies with higher levels of agility and alignment are more likely to have a successful Supply

Chain Center of Excellence. While there is only a 50% probability that the Supply Chain Center of

Excellence will be successful, it is worth the gamblei. The difference is leadership. When companies

clearly define supply chain strategy, and focus against the goals cross-functionally, there is a higher

probability of success by the Supply Chain Center of Excellence.

How can a Supply Chain Center of Excellence help? The use of network design technologies, along

with “what-if” analysis in supply chain planning, helps to drive alignment with finance and define a

more agile supply chain. In Figure 7, while companies rate the use of supply chain planning in the

Center of Excellence as mature, the practices for network design and inventory strategies are

important but less mature. To improve agility companies should focus in these areas.

Page 12

Figure 7. Characteristics of Supply Chain Centers of Excellence: Importance versus Performance

Unfortunately, only 1/3 of companies today have these capabilities to align with finance on building an

agile supply chainii.

Supply Chain Visibility The winds of a recession are whipping. Trade winds are changing. Globalization and localization are

happening simultaneously. Growth is slowing. Despite these market trends, the supply chain

organization cannot see. The supply chain is safely tucked behind the firewall, operating on data that

is late and out of sync with the market.

Companies without supply chain visibility have a higher probability of not believing their supply chains

perform well. The majority of manufacturing and retail companies want better performing supply

chains. The desire is to drive alignment, proactive processes, and agility. Visibility is essential to this

vision. The current state is reactive, slow, and inside-out.

The vision of the tightly integrated, efficient enterprise supply chain has failed. The focus needs to be

on data synchronization between trading partners using technologies which are designed to support

the flows within the value network.

Page 13

The statement of, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting new and different results is

insanity" is attributed to both Franklin and Einstein, but I think is relevant to this discussion.

Today, as can be seen from one of our prior studies, the supply chain is a value network. As shown in

Figure 8, companies are more dependent on third-party relationshipsiii. Outsourcing is a way of life.

On average, companies outsource 32% of manufacturing and 44% of logistics. The current focus on

supply chain automation enables enterprise efficiency, not value network effectiveness. To be

effective the flows between these trading partners need to be automated with bidirectional,

collaborative technologies in many-to-many architectures (many parties to many parties).

Figure 8. Outsourcing of Manufacturing and Logistics

Most companies cannot see beyond their firewalls. In our research, discrete industries—aerospace,

automotive, high-tech, and semiconductor—are more mature on supply chain visibility. Process

industry leaders—chemical, consumer packaged goods, food/beverage—have greater issues using

data, with software usability, and building effective connections to align and build effective

relationships with trading partners

Page 14

Table 3. Characteristics of Companies by Industry

Figure 9. Current State of Supply Chain Network Visibility

Page 15

Since most companies invested in the automation of the enterprise, not the value network, visibility

within the company and the transportation network is a strength. However, visibility of channel

relationships—customer orders and consumption/purchase—in the demand network, or the use and

consumption of materials in the extended supplier network, is an ongoing issue. Consequently the

supply chain is out of step with the market. The processes are largely batch, using data with great

latency (orders and purchase orders). We have automated the enterprise, but not the network. As a

result we have induced and exaggerated the Bullwhip Effect in the value chain: there is great waste

and opportunity for automation of effective value networks.

Despite two decades of enterprise solutions, companies today are only good at email, fax, or postal

mail, but not in the automation of the extended network. Figure 10 is a sad statement for the evolution

of supply chain visibility. Companies only feel that they are good at sharing emails and spreadsheets.

Figure 10. Current State of B2B Connectivity

Many companies that have depended on the extension of ERP architectures to build value networks

are dependent on ERP messaging and portals; but, this form of B2B automation lacks bidirectional

communication and an inter-enterprise system of record. Let’s explain the issue using two examples:

Page 16

• Inadequacy of Portals. Macy's, the North American retailer, is under market attack. They are

pushing back on suppliers. It is a brutal environment. The changes for supplier trade are ever-

changing with greater punitive implications. However, Macy's communicates to suppliers

through portals. The information changes daily. As a result, without a persistence layer, it is

tough for suppliers to work through issues and track needs. Macy's feels good about their

portal strategy, but it is ineffective for supplier coordination. As a result, out-of-stocks reign and

supplier teams spend endless hours debating deductions.

• Need for Bidirectional Communication. Let’s take another example: I was speaking to a

supplier critical to delivering materials to the Caterpillar heavy loader division last week. The

supplier commented that it was impossible to know what Caterpillar needs for direct materials

requirements at their factories. Why? They get over 5000 spreadsheets daily with each plant

changing the requirements multiple times a day. The issue? There is no system of record with

bidirectional agreements on supply.

Strong value networks and strong relationships go hand-in-hand. In the building of global supply

chains in the last decade, across value networks, outsourcing to third-party logistics, and contract

manufacturing, accelerated. While the leaders that forged these relationships promised innovation

and acceleration of B2B networks, what happened was quite different.

In the building of the contract manufacturing model, brand owners in the high-tech value chain

pushed cost and waste backward into the value network, creating issues with fair labor and social

responsibility. They did not automate the value network or take ownership for their demand signal.

The low margins, the transactional nature of the relationships, and the lack of innovation are barriers

for the high-tech value network to move forward. The process industry's reliance on the 3PL

transportation model is a similar dilemma.

• Lesson #1. Use Value Network Solutions. Enterprise solutions are not designed to automate

the value chain. Select a solution with the characteristics of bidirectional flows and a system of

record to support decision support applications.

• Lesson #2. Enterprise Applications’ Lack of Adaptors for the Extended Value Chain. The enterprise definitions of CRM and SRM do not enable the natural connection of

value networks. To drive success in value networks, build multi-tier capabilities in channel and

sourcing relationships, sidestepping the use of both traditional CRM and SRM concepts.

• Lesson #3. Build Strong Relationships in the Value Network with Strong Bridges. Own

Page 17

the network and build win-win relationships. We have spent the last decade building win/lose

transactional data models. Supplier viability is an issue, and currently companies give lip

service to social responsibility. Over 90% of companies have a social responsibility statement,

more than 70% have marketing claims on managing social issues (recycled, lower energy, less

waste), but only 22% of companies are automating and owning the value network where there

is consumption of 65% of nonrenewable resourcesiv. Change the dynamic by owning the value

network and automating bidirectional flows and enabling systems of record between trading

partners. Make the world a better place. Reduce risk. Don't just talk about reducing risk and

improving collaboration. It starts with defining a win/win business model and automating

network flows.

Sales and Operations Planning In the evolution of supply chain excellence, Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) grows in

importance. But, as shown in Figure 11, only four companies out of ten report successes in S&OP.

Figure 11. Success in Sales and Operations Planning

While there is no correlation between companies that rate their supply chains as effective and S&OP,

we do see a relationship between S&OP maturity and alignment and agility.

Page 18

Delivering successful S&OP is dependent on the right combination of technology, process and

leadership. For the respondents of our surveys, the lack of the right technology is a major hurdle.

S&OP is not a new process. It is over 40 years old. The goal of Sales and Operations Planning is to

drive organizational alignment and improve balance sheet results. It is a monthly process that most

companies struggle to implement.

As can be seen in Figure 12, the gap in technology capabilities is the largest barrier currently to drive

improvement. Why is this? To successfully implement S&OP, companies need role-based views,

“what-if” analysis, and the ability to determine the profitability of plan alternatives. For most

organizations this is an issue.

Figure 12. Organizational Gaps in Building a Mature Sales and Operations Planning Process

Only 1/3 of companies surveyed have what they need to be successful with S&OP. The issue is

twofold. The traditional definition of supply chain advanced planning did not include the requirements

for S&OP; and as a result, most companies are using Excel spreadsheets, which are inadequate.

Page 19

Figure 13. Gaps in S&OP Technology Capabilities

Next steps? The answer is simple. Don't misconstrue S&OP technology as an extension of

conventional supply chain planning. When selecting a technology for S&OP, be sure to list the

requirements for these three areas (in Figure 13) on your technology check-list for the selection team.

While some may argue that S&OP is not a technology implementation, we both agree and disagree.

Clearly organizations must align towards the business goals, and this is the first step. In small

regional implementations the technology is not as important; however, for global and multinational

supply chains, as shown here, to sustain S&OP progress they must find the right technologies.

Unfortunately, too few have what it takes to drive S&OP processes to the highest level.

As seen in Table 5, companies with mature S&OP processes are more likely to have had a supply

chain organization for a longer period of time and have experienced demand and supply volatility.

There is also a correlation to the design of the supply chain organization. When customer service and

inventory management report to supply chain there is greater progress in delivering a mature S&OP.

Page 20

Table 5. Characteristics of S&OP Effectiveness

Supply Chain Talent and Building Core Capabilities The shortage of supply chain talent—with the graying of the workforce and the explosion of

opportunities for supply chain leaders—is a risk for the supply chain. While most companies have

programs to focus on entry-level employees, and high-potential employees, most miss the need to

train and retain mid-management supply chain leaders (managers, senior managers and directors).

As shown in Figure 14, only 21% of companies feel that they manage talent better than their peers.

Forty percent feel that they are at parity with their peer group.

Page 21

Figure 14. Performance in Management of Supply Chain Talent

As shown in Table 6, in the management of talent there is no difference between process and

discrete companies. Instead, the differences lie with tenure of the supply chain team and the reporting

structure of the supply chain organization.

Table 6. Characteristics of Companies Managing Talent Same as or Better Than Peers

Page 22

Data and IT Strategies Within the organization there is ongoing tension between IT and Operations. With many CIOs

reporting to the CFO, politics often reign within the organization. As shown in Figure 15, there is a

one- in-two success rate for a successful IT project.

Figure 15. Success Rate of IT Projects

Companies with more successful IT projects have higher pain with the changing speed of business.

This pressure aligns and galvanizes IT and Line of Business leaders to work together. While there is

no significance in IT success with the consolidation of ERP instances, as shown in Table 7 there is a

correlation between successful IT projects and supply chain visibility.

Page 23

Table 7. Characteristics of Companies with Higher Success Rate with IT Implementations

The consolidation of ERP instances has both a positive and a negative. As shown in Table 8, in the

consolidation of ERP instances there are serious change management issues. On the positive side,

with fewer instances, companies become more proactive; but, as the instances are consolidated,

there are serious issues with organizational alignment and the understanding of supply chain

excellence.

Table 8. Characteristics of Companies with ERP Consolidation

Page 24

Recommendations and Insights The goal of this report is to understand the characteristics of companies who report their supply

chains are “working well.” Here are some recommendations from this research:

• Educate and Align. Supply chain management is new and many of the concepts in this report

are not well-understood in the global organization. To drive excellence, educate and train

teams cross-functionally on the principles of agility, and focus on building supply chain

alignment through a clear supply chain strategy. Be sure there is alignment with finance and

the commercial teams of sales and marketing, and continually market the results to pave the

road for success. The clearer the strategy aligns with business goals, the higher the probability

of success.

• Rethink Supply Chain Reporting Structures. Supply chain organizations are relatively

new—about 14 years old on average. In the analysis we find correlations to both the tenure of

the supply chain organization and the number of reporting relationships. Take time to build

supply chain talent, and concentrate reporting structures of source, make, and deliver to build

supply chain excellence.

• Embrace Demand and Supply Volatility. Higher volatility is today’s reality. Embrace volatility

and use it to unify the organization to drive action in building a legacy of supply chain

excellence. Don’t just measure forecast accuracy. Instead, use the probability of demand to

understand the impacts on inventory and supply chain strategies. Focus on inventory

strategies to buffer demand, and build strong supply chain solutions to enable visibility from the

customer’s customer to the supplier’s supplier.

• Focus on Building Supply Chain Visibility. Strong supply chain visibility capabilities have a

high correlation to a company’s ability to perform well in the delivery of supply chain

excellence. Work hard to connect to trading partners and build sustainable win/win

relationships.

• Sidestep Hype Cycles. While there are many consultants and technology firms hawking plans

for ERP instance consolidation and investment in enterprise applications, stabilize the

investments in enterprise technology and build value networks.

Page 25

Conclusion There are many beliefs about what drives supply chain excellence. In this report we have tried to peel

back the research to understand “what makes a difference.” It is clear from the research that

companies that are better aligned, with a focus on agility, have higher levels of supply chain

satisfaction. The supply chain is a complex system with increasing complexity. As a result, we find

that it is not one, but many factors together which add up to drive improvement.

In this analysis we conclude it is about leadership. Supply chain excellence is defined by the sum of

the parts, driven by an enlightened leader. For example, S&OP and inventory strategies improve

agility, but they are not enough by themselves to drive supply chain excellence. The consolidation of

reporting structures and improving supply chain visibility are strong contributing factors, but they are

dependent on clear supply chain strategies and organizational alignment.

Supply chain excellence is not defined by a road map of successful projects or the definition of a

strong function within a functional organization. Instead, it is about the rethinking and execution of

strategy to deliver on the business goals cross-functionally through data-driven insights.

Page 26

Terms to Know Getting clear on terms is often the first step to driving a supply chain transformation. To help teams,

here we provide the definitions of the terms used in this report and the supporting research:

• Agility. Given the level of demand and supply volatility, building the capability within the supply

chain to deliver the same cost, quality and customer service.

• Central Limit Theorem. By definition, the Central Limit Theorem states that, given certain

conditions, the arithmetic mean of a sufficiently large number of iterates of independent

random variables, each with a well-defined expected value and well-defined variance, will be

approximately normally distributed, regardless of the underlying distribution.v

• Concurrent Optimization. The use of technologies to solve optimization problems across

source, make, and deliver, in-memory together to rationalize cross-functional trade-offs.

• Demand Latency. The time it takes for order take-away at the point of consumption to

translate into an order for a manufacturer. The slower the velocity at the point of consumption,

the longer the demand latency.

• Efficient Supply Chain. A supply chain delivering the lowest cost per unit.

• Inventory Configuration. A focus on form and function of inventory, along with techniques

like postponement and risk pooling, to improve inventory buffers.

• Linear Optimization. The use of linear programming to drive insights for decision support

tools in supply chain planning. It is a mathematical model where an equation of linear

relationships is used to model the best outcome (such as maximum profit or lowest cost). The

assumption is that relationships in the model are linear. In the case of supply chain, many

relationships are nonlinear. The second fallacy is by definition, the optimization is based on

averages, and many as a result product an output that is an infeasible scenario.

• Multi-Tier Inventory Optimization. The use of inventory optimization—often a linear model--

to determine optimization levels at multiple nodes simultaneously.

• Operational Planning. The planning process that stretches over the horizon of the slush

period to the freeze duration in manufacturing planning.

• Push/Pull Decoupling Points. Some supply chains push inventory into the channel, while in

others, inventory is pulled into the channel based on orders. When push/pull decoupling points

Page 27

are defined it identifies the point at which inventory is decoupled on a push/pull boundary.

• Postponement. An inventory strategy to delay steps of the conversion process until the

demand for the final product is known.

• Responsive Supply Chain. A supply chain with short cycles.

• Revenue Management. Analyzing the impact of price, promotion and channel incentives on

demand lift and product profitability. Revenue management is the horizontal process that helps

companies rationalize the effectiveness of demand shaping programs.

• Sales and Operations Planning. The cross-functional process of matching demand and

supply plans to balance demand and orchestrate the market response.

• Supply Chain Operating Networks: The building of supply chain applications using many-to-

many architectures to connect multiple parties to multiple trading partners to improve multi-tier

supply chain visibility, planning, and execution to improve relationships in extended value

chains.

• Tactical Planning. The period of planning that stretches from the freeze duration in

manufacturing planning to 12-18 months in the future. (While it varies by industry, with

pharmaceutical companies planning for three years, and high-tech companies planning for six

to eight months, 12-18 months is the average planning duration for tactical planning.)

Page 28

Appendix In this section we share the demographic information of survey respondents, along with research

findings, to support the key insights listed in this report. These study responses were limited to

retailers, manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers. Academics, consultants, and

technology providers were disqualified in the respondent process.

As an incentive to complete the survey, the companies responding to this survey received final results

and some had the option to discuss the results by phone, or participate in global roundtables to

discuss the results as a group and network with other supply chain leaders. At all times, the names

both of individual respondents and companies participating are held in confidence.

In this section, the demographics are shared to help the readers of this report gain a better

perspective on the results. The demographics and additional charts to support the findings are found

in Figures A–I and Table A. To help the reader, at the bottom of each image we list the specific

questions asked in the quantitative survey. For example, as shown in Figure A, the majority of the

respondents are from manufacturing companies.

Figure A. Revenue and Industry Groupings of the Respondents

Page 29

Figure B. Respondent Characterization by Industry

Table A. High-Level Characteristics of Respondents by Industry

Page 30

Figure C. Number of Functions Reporting to the Supply Chain Organization

Figure D. Number of Instances of Enterprise Resource Planning

Page 31

Figure E. Characteristics of the Supply Chain Organization

Figure F. Presence of a Supply Chain Center of Excellence

Page 32

Figure G. Success of a Supply Chain Center of Excellence

Figure H. Current State of Supply Chain Agility within the Supply Chain Organizations

Page 33

Figure I. B2B Solutions Currently Used

Additional Reading If you have enjoyed this report, check out additional relevant reports available free of charge on

Supply Chain Insights website.

Driving Supply Chain Excellence through Supply Chain Centers of Excellence Inventory Optimization in a Market-Driven World Maximizing the ROI in Supply Chain Planning Putting Together the Pieces: The S&OP Technology Landscape in 2015 Supply Chain Talent--A Missing Link in the Supply Chain Supply Chains to Admire – 2015 What Is the Value Proposition of Sales and Operations Planning? What Drives Inventory Effectiveness in a Market-Driven World? Why Is S&OP So Hard? Why is Supply Chain Planning So Hard?

Page 34

About Supply Chain Insights LLC Founded in February, 2012 by Lora Cecere, Supply Chain Insights LLC is beginning its fifth year of

operation. The Company’s mission is to deliver independent, actionable, and objective advice for supply chain leaders. If you need to know which practices and technologies make the biggest

difference to corporate performance, we want you to turn to us. We are a company dedicated to this

research. Our goal is to help leaders understand supply chain trends, evolving technologies and

which metrics matter.

About Lora Cecere Lora Cecere (twitter ID @lcecere) is the Founder of Supply Chain Insights LLC and

the author of popular enterprise software blog Supply Chain Shaman currently read

by 5,000 supply chain professionals. She also writes as a Linkedin Influencer and

is a a contributor for Forbes. She has written four books. The first book, Bricks

Matter, (co-authored with Charlie Chase) published in 2012. The second book, The

Shaman’s Journal 2014, published in September 2014; the third book, Supply

Chain Metrics That Matter, published in December 2014; and the fourth book, The

Shaman’s Journal 2015, published in September 2015. She is currently working on a two new books:

a new edition of The Shaman’s Journal to publish in September 2016, and a book on supply chain

leadership to publish in 2018.

With over 12 years as a research analyst with AMR Research, Altimeter Group, and Gartner Group, and now as the Founder of Supply Chain Insights, Lora understands supply chain. She has

worked with over 600 companies on their supply chain strategy and speaks at over 50 conferences a

year on the evolution of supply chain processes and technologies. Her research is designed for the

early adopter seeking first mover advantage.

Page 35

Endnotes i Defining Supply Chain Excellence, Supply Chain Insights, 03/18/2015, http://supplychaininsights.com/driving-supply-chain-excellence/ ii Defining Supply Chain Excellence, 03/18/2016, http://supplychaininsights.com/driving-supply-chain-excellence/ iii Supply Chain Visibility in Business Networks, Supply Chain Insights, 03/16/2016, http://supplychaininsights.com/supply-chain-visibility-in-business-networks/ iv Building the Green Supply Chain, 3/18/2016, http://supplychaininsights.com/building-the-green-supply-chain/ v Definition of Central Limit Theorem, Wikipedia, 3/12/2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem