Putting Together the Pieces - The S&OP Technology Landscape - 20 AUG 2015

Putting Together the Pieces:
The S&OP Technology
Landscape in 2015
08/21/2015
By Lora Cecere
Founder and CEO
Supply Chain Insights LLC

Contents
Research Overview .................................................................................................................................................................4
Research Methodology...........................................................................................................................................................4
Disclosure................................................................................................................................................................................5
Executive Overview.................................................................................................................................................................6
Current State of Technology Usage for S&OP: Understanding the Gaps .............................................................................10
Evolution of the S&OP Market: Understanding the Origins of the Market..........................................................................13
What Is S&OP Maturity?.......................................................................................................................................................16
Five Barriers to S&OP Maturity.............................................................................................................................................21
Misconceptions.....................................................................................................................................................................27
Making a Decision.................................................................................................................................................................30
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................................30
Other Reports in This Series..................................................................................................................................................31
Appendix ...............................................................................................................................................................................32
1. Adexa.................................................................................................................................................................................32
2. Anaplan .............................................................................................................................................................................32
3. Arkieva ..............................................................................................................................................................................33
4. Aspen Technology.............................................................................................................................................................33
5. Boardwalktech ..................................................................................................................................................................34
6. Demand Solutions.............................................................................................................................................................34
7. E2open ..............................................................................................................................................................................35
8. Enterra Solutions...............................................................................................................................................................35
9. Exceedra............................................................................................................................................................................36
10. IBM..................................................................................................................................................................................36
11. IBS....................................................................................................................................................................................37
12. Ignite ...............................................................................................................................................................................37
13. Infor.................................................................................................................................................................................38
14. JDA...................................................................................................................................................................................38
15. John Galt .........................................................................................................................................................................39
16. Jonova .............................................................................................................................................................................39
17. Kinaxis .............................................................................................................................................................................40
18. LLamasoft........................................................................................................................................................................41
19. Logility.............................................................................................................................................................................41

20. o9 Solutions.....................................................................................................................................................................42
21. Orchestr8 ........................................................................................................................................................................43
22. Oliver Wight ....................................................................................................................................................................43
23. OM Partners....................................................................................................................................................................43
24. Oracle..............................................................................................................................................................................44
25. QuintiQ............................................................................................................................................................................45
26. River Logic.......................................................................................................................................................................45
27. SAP ..................................................................................................................................................................................46
28. SAS Institute....................................................................................................................................................................47
29. Steelwedge......................................................................................................................................................................47
30. Tagetik.............................................................................................................................................................................48
31. Teradata..........................................................................................................................................................................49
32. Terra Technology ............................................................................................................................................................49
33. ToolsGroup......................................................................................................................................................................50
34. Triple Point Solutions......................................................................................................................................................50
35. TXT e-solutions................................................................................................................................................................51
About Supply Chain Insights, LLC..........................................................................................................................................52
About Lora Cecere.................................................................................................................................................................52
Endnotes ...............................................................................................................................................................................53

Research Overview
This report is an update of research published in 2012 and 2014. It summarizes technology options in
the market to automate Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) processes. The technology market
for S&OP is dynamic (mergers and acquisitions, new entrants and rebranding). This is confusing to
the buyer. In this report, we try to demystify the alternatives.
We share a methodology to help the buyer make a selection. Each company has unique
considerations. The first step in the purchase cycle is clarity on goals. In this report, we try to help the
buyer of software be more holistic in thinking through business requirements to make better
decisions.
Companies usually have not one, but an average of four active S&OP processes within the enterprise
crossing over many supply chains. As a result, companies will often find that building the right S&OP
solution requires the assembly of multiple technologies. The dialogue is often the requirements for
integration versus the requirements for the business solution. For this reason, we list the available
solutions in the market in the Appendix--detailing relative costs, strengths and weaknesses-- while
sharing solution enterprise frameworks o help business teams put together the pieces to build a
solution for each business.
Research Methodology
To understand the current market, a premise document was created and shared with the technology
provider community in November 2014. In the last six months, the Supply Chain Insights team asked
technology providers to share software demonstrations and provide reference contacts to update the
analysis in prior reports. In the process of doing reference calls, the Supply Chain Insights team
spoke directly to the user of the software without vendor presence to ask a defined set of questions in
a semi-structured interview:
• Define your selection process.
• How did you arrive at the selection of solution ____?
• What are the strengths of the current solution?
• Where are the shortfalls?
• What advice would you have for others considering buying the solution?
• How long did it take to deploy the solution? Cost of implementation?
• Is there anything that I didn’t ask that is relevant for the report?

In addition, to the interviews and the software demonstrations, to ensure factual accuracy, this report
is first shared with the technology providers prior to publication to gain feedback and gain feedback
on factual accuracy.
Throughout the report, we also reference the many quantitative and qualitative studies completed by
Supply Chain Insights in the area of S&OP planning. These can be referenced on our website and
are detailed in the Appendix of this report.
Disclosure
Your trust is important to us. In our business, we are open and transparent about our financial
relationships and our research operations. This research is 100% funded by Supply Chain Insights. In
this research process, we never share the names of respondents in the interviews and/or give
attribution to open comments collected in the research.
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, 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.
We are committed to delivering thought-leading content for the supply chain leader. It is our goal for
Supply Chain Insights to be the place where visionaries turn to gain an understanding of the future of
supply chain management.

Executive Overview
S&OP, the cross-functional process to align the commercial processes of sales and marketing with
the operational processes of material supply and manufacturing, is growing in importance. The
process is not new. Companies have worked on improving their S&OP processes for over 35 years;
but today, only one out of two companies believes that their processes are effective.0F
i
What are the barriers to improve effectiveness? They are numerous. As outlined in Figure 1, it is a
tough nut to crack. While the successful S&OP project is about much more than technology--skilled
resources, executive support, alignment on the right metrics, achieving balance and the management
of multiple processes simultaneously (often across a matrixed organization)--an organization cannot
achieve their goal without the use of technologies. Spreadsheets, while a good starting place, cannot
meet the challenges to deliver on the business goals of driving growth and improving profitability.
Figure 1. S&OP a Tough Nut to Crack

In this report, we share insights on 35 vendor solutions. Four of the solutions are new since the
writing of our last report and three companies have been restructured. The world of supply chain
management is ever-changing, and the goal of this report is to help companies sort through the
myriad of market changes and confusing technology promises to understand which solutions to
consider.
Right Stuff to Crack the Nut?
A mature S&OP process improves the dynamic capabilities of the organization--increasing cross-
functional agility and alignment. This improves profitable growth in the face of market volatility.
Positive change does not happen overnight. Achieving these goals requires focus and leadership
over a period of at least three to five years. A faster rate of success happens when the organization
has the right stuff:
• Right Reporting Structure. In the ideal scenario, the S&OP processes report to a profit center
manager.
• Balanced Decision-Making Capabilities. Decision making is balanced across the “S” (commercial
processes) with the “OP” (the operational requirements.)
• Carefully Selected Technology. Ideally, the technology platform supports the leader of the S&OP
process to understand both the commercial drivers, and the supply constraints, to make the right
business pivots; but, as will be seen in this report, this is seldom the reality.
Challenges
There are many challenges in the implementation of an S&OP solution. An organization needs to
understand how to use the technology. For most, this is an uphill battle. Typically organizations
understand transactional systems more quickly than planning systems. A second issue is that it
requires making time to plan and use the system. When the organization rewards the urgent, and
does not reward planning, the solutions are not used.
The understanding of planning, as shown in Figure 2, varies across the organization, with companies
having a better understanding of supply than demand. The gap in P&L leader understanding of
planning is a challenge for the implementation of S&OP technology. It is quite high. Success requires
an equal understanding of demand and supply across the organization. For S&OP processes to be
successful at the profit center level, training is required.

Figure 2. Understanding of Planning Across the Organization
One Size Does Not Fit All
Today, due to popularity of S&OP processes, and the complexity of business, companies have more
than one process. Often technology implementations will be happening in multiple S&OP processes
simultaneously. We find that a global multinational company will have four to six separate and distinct
S&OP processes with different maturity levels and technology requirements. While many companies
will try to drive improvements with large technology initiatives, and dictate the use of a common
technology, based on a decade of research on the topic, we recommend starting with business-
specific requirements and implementing technologies slowly based on a technology roadmap.
The differences in divisions will often necessitate the use of multiple systems. A mistake many
organizations make is trying to force-fit a technology standard across the company. It is penny-wise
and pound-foolish to focus on the reduction of IT costs through standardization in the face of the large
business opportunity to have the right systems to drive S&OP improvement. This is the battle waging
in many organizations.

Take It Slow
It is important to recognize that it takes years for an organization to learn and maximize the value
from a technology implementation. As a result, in the road map, companies need to make time to
train and adapt to new technology implementations. In this report, we share the current state of
technology deployment, provide analysis of technology alternatives and share advice for a successful
implementation. Software solution selection needs to be based on the fit of the technologies, the
organizational planning requirements, the industry-specific data model definitions, and process
maturity.
In summary, to crack the nut and drive success in an S&OP implementation, actively address the
challenges, embrace technologies, and train the organization to use the solution. (It is important to
note that the training needs to be for the entire organization, not just the planners.) In this report, we
first share the current state of the industry, and then we give guidance on how to select a solution.

Current State of Technology Usage for
S&OP: Understanding the Gaps
While the adoption and use of technology solutions is maturing, companies today use 2-3 systems
with a heavy dependency on Excel spreadsheets and Access. While these Microsoft Office
technologies are useful to get started on the S&OP journey, they are insufficient to model the supply
chain and drive S&OP success.
Why is a spreadsheet insufficient? The supply chain is a complex system with many nonlinear
relationships requiring the recognition of attributes, constraints, bottlenecks and business logic. While
companies are quite proud of their spreadsheet capabilities, over the course of a decade of research,
we have never interviewed a company that can achieve a feasible plan based on the use of a
spreadsheet approach. The current state of S&OP maturity is outlined in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Maturity of Current S&OP Processes
Despite the fact that a spreadsheet is insufficient to manage demand and supply modeling to match
demand and supply or maximize opportunity and mitigate risk, as shown in Figure 4, the most
predominant solution used for S&OP process automation is the spreadsheet. Note that the planners
report that they use multiple systems with only one in two using some form of Advanced Planning

System (APS). While many think of the planning market as mature, there is significant opportunity, if
the challenges to use the technologies can be overcome.
Figure 4. Use of Technologies
Figure 5. Limitations in Current Technology Infrastructures

When we ask companies to share insights on how they could improve their solution, the response is
to focus on “what-if” analysis, the ability to have secure role-based views and the capabilities to
understand not just volume, and the impact of changing product mix shifts on profitability. The degree
of this gap with current solutions is outlined in Figure 5. To overcome these challenges, educate the
selection team before beginning software selection and focus on closing these gaps by listing them
as a requirement on a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Since S&OP requires the modeling of demand and supply and visualization of inventory and S&OP
plan requirements, the solution is usually a composite solution of different solutions from demand,
supply, inventory optimization and S&OP visualization. As shown in Figure 6, when planner
satisfaction is evaluated using box and whisker charts, tactical supply planning rates the highest for
user satisfaction, with lower satisfaction rates for S&OP technologies and inventory optimization. The
reason? They are newer with more variation.
Figure 6. Planner Satisfaction with Planning Technologies
One of the opportunities is to tie S&OP planning to execution. As shown in Figure 6, this is an
opportunity for most.

Evolution of the S&OP Market:
Understanding the Origins of the Market
Buyer beware. There are more technologies advertised in the market for S&OP than fit the definition
of S&OP solution. As a result, carefully craft a short list of technology providers. A good starting place
is categorizing the technologies by technology type based on the history and evolution of the market.
The genesis of the technologies either stems from visualization, analytics or planning. Most mature
implementations usually rely on a combination of these technologies.
• Advanced Visualization. Examples of visualization technologies include technologies like
FusionOps, QlikView, Spotfire or Tableau. While these technologies enable easier viewing of the
“big picture,” they do not enable the deep modeling that is a pre-requisite to create an S&OP pan
that is feasible. These visualization technologies can overlay multiple S&OP processes and makes
the viewing of results easier. In addition, many technology solutions are introducing visualization
layers and embedding these visualization technologies into their solutions. For example Logility
introduced a visualization solution in 2015, and Tagetik and Terra Technology has embedded
QlikView into their solution.
• Business Analytics. Pre-built analytical data models from traditional business intelligence
technologies like Business Objects (now SAP), Cognos (now IBM), Hyperion (now Oracle),
Informatica, or Micro Strategies are used by the finance teams in many organizations to evaluate
the impact of supply-based decisions on profitability. While these BI technologies enable a quick
and deep evaluation of financial implications, they are unable to provide a forecast or a constraint-
based supply plan. Why? They lack the supply and demand data models and the optimization
necessary to develop a feasible plan.
• Supply Chain Planning. The supply chain planning applications evolved from the supply chain
planning and optimization space, and over time, these vendors have added S&OP capabilities.
While these technologies model demand and supply constraints, in many of the technologies, it is
difficult to translate volume to profitability or perform “what-if” analysis.

Figure 7. The Origin of S&OP Applications
In the last decade, hybrid solutions evolved. With the introduction of cloud-based computing,
solutions built natively as Software as a Service (SaaS) evolved. Steelwedge evolved the first SaaS
S&OP solution in 2000, and Kinaxis evolved as an SaaS player in 2005. Following suit, SAP IBP on
HANA was introduced in 2013, o9 Solutions in 2014, and Anaplan entered the S&OP market in 2015.
Deployment options have also proliferated. Hosted, on-premise, and SaaS solutions exist. The
difficulty for a selection team is that this myriad of solutions all uses the same label: “S&OP solutions.”
How does an organization make a decision? The decision needs to be based on five factors:
• Industry-specific Solutions/fit of Data model
• Organizational Planning Requirements
• S&OP Maturity
• Cost and Deployment Options
• Cultural Fit
Here we share insights on these criteria.

Need for Industry-Specific Solutions
The most critical requirement for the selection of an S&OP solution is the fit of the data model to the
business problem. When selecting a solution, it is paramount to ensure that the industry data model is
consistent with your business requirements. As a result, it is recommended that companies do
conference room pilots and test the software before buying. To help the buyer, in the appendix we list
available solutions and identify their industry focus.
Organizational Planning Requirements
Planning organizations vary from one to six thousand planners. The requirements for collaborative
workflow and security are deeply rooted in the business structure. In larger organizations,
visualization and collaborative workflows are critical. In smaller organizations of one-to-two planners
and a small operations team, it is not as critical. When thinking about technology requirements, keep
in mind the range of requirements by type of planner. No two organizations are alike.
While the newer visualization technologies (Anaplan, o9, SAP IBP, and Steelwedge) are very helpful
to the causal planner and for use in executive review sessions, these new visualization solutions
typically lack the depth of planning that is required by the core modelers in the business to generate a
feasible plan. In mapping the requirements for the organization outline the needs and requirements of
each type of planner by division or business unit. We outline some of these differences in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Types of Planners

What Is S&OP Maturity?
Companies in this study have an average of four different processes, each with differing levels of
maturity. With the growth of the global multinational, based on our advisory work with clients, this is a
very common situation.
One of the first questions that an S&OP leadership team will ask is, “How do I define S&OP
maturity?” The level of maturity drives the decision process for technology solutions. If a company is
at a low level of maturity look for an easy-to-use solution with an integrated data model. The maturity
of an S&OP process can easily be determined by answering five questions:
• What are the goals of the S&OP processes?
• How is balance achieved between demand and supply?
• How are decisions made? Are the decisions made in a cadence to the market?
• How does the organization measure success?
• How is S&OP tied to execution?
The maturity of the S&OP process needs to be a
carefully controlled migration. The definition of
both process excellence and technology
requirements are very different along the life cycle
of S&OP maturity. To understand S&OP maturity,
let’s start with a discussion of goal evolution within
S&OP processes, and then discuss the issues
and complexities of S&OP governance. A diagram
outlining S&OP process goal definition and
evolution is shared in Figure 9. The first three
stages are “inside-out” and the last two stages are
“outside-in.” In the movement from inside-out to
outside-in, organizations usually must redeploy
and configure the S&OP solution. Evolution from
Stage 3 (which is often termed Integrated
Business Planning), to Stage 4 which is demand-
driven value chain planning with channel partners,
is usually contingent on the redeployment of an
existing technology or the selection of a new platform.
Myths - The market is rife with
unsubstantiated claims and myths. These
are a barrier to driving improvement.
These include:
• Companies don’t need a technology to
drive an effective S&OP process.
• S&OP can be effectively modeled
using a spreadsheet.
• An 80% technology fit is good enough
to drive a successful S&OP process.
• Standardize: One solution provider is
all one company needs.
• S&OP is dead. Integrated Business
Planning (IBP) is the new solution.
• Supply chains are moving so fast that
companies don’t have time to plan.
• Real-time S&OP is the desired
outcome.
• Tight integration with Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) improves the
S&OP process.
• Tight integration with the financial
budget drives the best results.

Getting clear on the stages and aligning the technology with process maturity is the first stage of
technology selection.
S&OP is not S&OP. Each organization is at a different level of maturity; and within an organization,
the processes are also at a different maturity level.
The myths are many, and it is important to keep the team grounded as they are peppered with
‘advice’ from well-intended consultants.
Figure 9. Sales and Operations Maturity and Planning Evolution Model
Stage 1 Goal: Deliver a Feasible Plan.
The first S&OP process originated with a goal of developing a feasible plan. Early evolution of the
APS market enabled organizations to develop a forecast, visualize operational requirements, and
align metrics. The introduction of the Theory of Constraints (TOC) in 1984, and the evolution of the
concepts into manufacturing planning applications, enhanced this capability. It allowed organizations
to identify constraints and build a feasible, or realistic, plan.
At this stage of the model, companies develop a demand plan and then a supply plan. The focus is
on what is feasible to produce with a focus on what and when. It is a volumetric exercise. Each of

these supply planning models is very industry-specific, often requiring different technologies. A
feasible plan cannot be achieved through BI tools or Excel spreadsheets. Instead, it requires the
modeling of constraints and product mix impacts. In our research studies, 14% of companies were at
this level of maturity. However, it is important to note that many companies skip this phase of
determining the best technology to determine a feasible plan and regret it later.
Stage 2 Goal: Match Demand with Supply.
As organizations mature, and after building capabilities to have a feasible plan, teams need a solution
with more advanced capabilities to model the trade-offs of volume and product mix, and translate the
“S” or commercial visions of the world into the “OP” or operational reality. As product mix changes,
these trade-offs can be very complex. Through the use of technologies, companies are able to
visualize and balance customer service, assess network strategies, and build inventory plans to best
match demand with supply. Usually, at this stage in S&OP, inventory modeling capabilities are added
to move from a focus on inventory levels to optimize the “form and function of inventory” and right-
size inventory buffers. With the increase in demand and supply volatility, inventory modeling is
increasing in importance.
To meet the requirement of the best, or optimal, plan companies have invested in “what-if” modeling
environments. In this research, 42% of companies were at this stage of matching demand with
supply.
Stage 3 Goal: Drive the Most Profitable Response.
While Stage 1 is supply-driven and Stage 2 is sales/marketing-driven, Stage 3 is business-planning-
driven. This is commonly dubbed by many as Integrated Business Planning (IBP). The question of the
right name for the process in the organization is often a heated argument. In your implementation,
sidestep the religion and get on with the important work of representing decisions in both volume and
currency and understanding the profit impact of decisions for the organization.
The process basics and the technology requirements are quite different between Stage 2 and Stage
3. To accomplish Stage 3 modeling, the demand and supply hierarchies must be decoupled to enable
volume/mix “what-if” trade-offs iteratively between process steps. Profitability, supply and inventory
modeling are iterative with a focus on “what-if” planning. This S&OP maturity stage requires the
addition of two new capabilities: demand translation into revenue management, and supply
orchestration of costs across source, make and deliver.
The process of modeling demand volume/mix trade-offs between demand and supply is demand

translation. In supply orchestration, trade-offs are determined and translated into buying strategies in
commodity markets to determine the most effective formulation or platform design to schedule for
manufacturing. In our study, 14% of companies were focused on determining the most profitable plan.
Stage 4 Goal: Build Demand-Driven Supply Chain Capabilities.
At this stage of S&OP, the process is designed from the outside-in. It is focused on product sell-
through in the channel, whereas the earlier stages are focused on selling into the channel. This stage
requires redefining the forecasting processes to sense market conditions based on channel demand
signals and then shaping demand to increase lift. Demand sensing reduces the latency to see true
channel demand, while demand shaping combines the techniques of price, promotion, sales and
marketing incentives, and new-product launch to increase demand lift. In 90% of the organizations
that it works with, requires a redefinition of technologies.
The definition of “demand-driven value networks” for the purpose of this report are processes which
sense shifts in channel demand, with zero latency, to enable the organization to shape and translate
demand across the functions of sell, deliver, make and sourcing operations. In our survey, 17% of
companies were trying to maximize opportunities and mitigate risks. However, in the follow-up
interviews, due to the lack of redefinition of the technology architectures, they are unable to sense
outside-in. Inside-out processes cannot evolve. It is not as easy as adding a “collaboration module” to
traditional S&OP technologies. Instead, they must be redefined.
Stage 5 Goal: Orchestrate Through Market-Driven Value
Networks.
The horizontal processes in Stages 3 and 4 are foundational to building Market-Driven Value
Networks. This technology portfolio helps companies to sense and shape demand and supply
bidirectionally between sell- and buy-side markets. This process of bidirectional trade-offs between
demand and supply markets is termed “demand orchestration.” This capability allows companies to
win in this new world of changing opportunities and supply constraints. It is especially relevant with
the tightening of commodity markets. We estimate that 2% of companies are operating at this level.
The greatest understanding of this shift is in the consumer electronics market. When price shifts and
product life cycles are variable, the processes must be rooted in network sensing. Optimizing the
enterprise flows is not sufficient.

Figure 10. Sales and Operations Maturity and Planning Evolution Model: A Technology View
One of the items to concentrate on before beginning the S&OP journey is to eliminate Excel ghettos
within your organization. The definition of a feasible plan—with all of the constraints and intricacies of
today’s organizational nuances—cannot be adequately satisfied using an Excel spreadsheet. Instead,
companies need to invest in APS technologies for stages 1and 2, and specialist S&OP tools for
Stages 3 through 5.
While the marketing for SAP HANA may sound compelling to SAP users, we struggle to get positive
references and advise caution. (The five companies that we have followed are doing pilot
implementations and are struggling with base-level functionality like bottoms-up and tops-down
hierarchical demand visualization and capacity modeling. In addition, the SAP IBP solution is 3 to 10
times more expensive, and has 3 to 5 times longer deployment times than alternatives, with the
business users paying for functionality upgrades to make the solution work. As a result, SAP HANA
IBP is only recommended for an early adopter with strong SAP in-house skills and deep pockets.)

Five Barriers to S&OP Maturity
In our research, and work with clients, we find that the leader of S&OP faces five barriers and four
organizational misconceptions. A barrier is defined as a process or technology gap, whereas a
misconception is deeply rooted in organizational culture. In this report we outline each barrier and
give advice to help the team move past them.
Issue 1: The Barrier of the Functional Organization. Align Metrics.
The first issue to tackle is that organizational functions, by definition, are not aligned. The metrics and
incentives of business leaders are in conflict. So, without redesigning metrics to be overarching, and
aligned across the functions, the goals cannot be achieved. Since many bonus incentives are tied to
functional metrics, one of the first tasks is to define current measurement systems and then redefine
them for cross-functional processes.
Figure 11. It Is Hard for Functional Silos to Work Together. They are not Naturally Aligned.
Action Item: Align cross-functionally on five to seven metrics and embed these into the S&OP
process. Gain agreement that the S&OP process is a cross-functional end-to-end process, not a
supply chain process. We believe, based on four years of research, the metrics that matter are
growth, cost, inventory, customer service, and Return on Invested Capital (ROIC). (Avoid the use of
working capital as an overarching metric due to the heavy influence of the lengthening of Days of
Payables on the metric which can hide the need to focus on inventory.)

Issue 2: The Lack of Understanding of the Supply Chain as a
Complex System.
For many, the management of the supply chain as a complex system is an enigma. Many executive
teams struggle to understand the tightly-interconnected nonlinear relationships of supply chain
metrics. As a result, the initiative fights to survive with ever-changing priorities. To drive the
improvements that most companies want and crave, the S&OP metrics need to be part of the
operating strategy. The organization needs to be held accountable for shared metrics. We find that
most companies measure too many metrics and that the metrics selected are not holistic and cross-
functional. To improve S&OP processes, we recommend the metrics of growth, market share,
forecast accuracy, inventory levels, cost (operating margin, EBITDA, or gross margin), ROIC and
customer service. These metrics are tightly interwoven with nonlinear relationships.
These metrics need to be shared and owned by the entire organization. To make this work, functional
metrics must be reengineered to focus on reliability. Examples of functional reliability metrics include
first-pass yield, schedule adherence, and hands-free orders.
Figure 12. Inventory Ownership in the Typical Company

This is not the reality in most organizations. As a result, the metrics are siloed with unequal ownership
across the organization. An unfortunate, but common, example of this is the ownership of inventory.
To make progress, inventory must be owned by the entire organization. However, as seen in Figure
12, inventory is usually owned by the supply chain group, not the entire organization
process. Hold the entire organization responsible for the metrics and manage them as a complex
system. While many companies measure working capital, companies should measure inventory
levels directly and hold the entire organization accountable.
Issue 3: Lack of Organizational Alignment.
The largest gulf in organizations is in the alignment between sales and operations teams. The smart
profit center leader running an S&OP process will tackle this head-on. They will enlist the help of
finance to drive alignment by translating the impact of product mix shifts, and go-to-market strategies,
on costs and inventory positions. Similarly, they will make the bridge to the commercial teams.
Leadership and corporate culture are major drivers for alignment. As can be seen in Figure 13,
executive understanding of S&OP processes is often a gap.
Figure 13. Alignment Is the Top Driver of Business Pain

The greatest gaps in alignment, as shown in Figure 14, are between the sales and operations teams.
This is a major barrier for S&OP success. As companies close this gap, the processes of S&OP
become much easier and results accelerate. Alignment is usually accelerated by a guiding coalition
against compelling business initiative or enlightened executive leadership. Since it is easier to build a
guiding coalition than to hire an enlightened executive leadership team, we recommend that teams
work together to craft a guiding coalition. For Daniel Weber, at Beiersdorf in 2012, this was improving
customer service.
Figure 14. Organizational Alignment
process. Hold the entire organization responsible for the metrics and manage them as a complex
system and link it to a guiding coalition. Train the finance team on complex system concepts and
discuss how to not throw the supply chain out of balance.
Issue 4: The Lack of Balance in the Process.
Only 44% of respondents in our recent research feel that the processes are balanced between the
needs of the commercial and operations teams. When the S&OP processes are balanced, the
organization is able to operate at lower costs with less inventory. However, the path to get to balance

requires clear communication of the operating strategy and alignment of the metrics across the
organization.
To paraphrase the discussion from a recent roundtable, “We have successfully worked on the ‘OP’,
operations, and made improvement. The team is also making progress on the ‘S’, or the translation of
market plans; however, our difficulty lies in managing the areas of the ‘&’. It is the ‘&’ where we have
the most problems. This includes translation of mix changes, revenue management, new product
introductions, and go-to-market strategies.” As a result, many companies are investing in demand-
planning specialists to track commercial programs. Others are implementing attribute-planning and
new-product launch forecasting technologies to improve forecasting of demand-shaping programs.
Designing a process that encompasses both the elements of the ‘S’ and the ‘OP’ and the ‘&’ is a good
place to start. It needs to be managed holistically.
Figure 15. Process Balance
Action Item: Design the S&OP processes holistically with balance as a goal.
Issue 5: Focus on the Translation of Planning to Execution.
What good is planning if it is not tied to effective execution? In this study, we find that only 11% of
companies feel they nearly always effectively tie the S&OP planning process to execution, and 19%
feel that they do it most of the time. Many companies have not built the processes to tie the S&OP
planning processes to execution. This is essential to drive the impact of S&OP process improvement

into business results. The connection between S&OP planning and seamless execution starts with
the design. The companies that excel in the delivery of S&OP execution build playbooks through
“what-if” analysis.
Figure 16. Tying S&OP Planning to S&OP Execution
The ability to build playbooks hinges on “what-if” capabilities. As can been seen in Figure 5, only 1/3
of companies in this survey are satisfied with their “what-if” capabilities. With many limited to Excel
spreadsheets, base-level ERP, and BI tools, this should not come as a surprise. In qualitative
interviews, companies running best-of- breed technologies have greater capabilities in “what-if”
analysis.
To be effective in S&OP execution, select technologies to manage the trade-offs of opportunity and
risk, developing ”what-if” analysis, and determining the most profitable plan.
Action Item: Design with the end in mind to tie S&OP planning to execution. Select technologies and
design work processes to tie S&OP planning to execution.

Misconceptions
Along with the five barriers, companies need to also fight four misconceptions.
Misconception 1: Focus on Inventory Levels. Instead, Determine
the Form and Function of Inventory.
Define the role of Inventory Management Planner, and maximize the value of technology to calculate
the right inventory levels, and form and function, of inventory. While most inventory management
technologies only focus on safety stock calculations, the more advanced inventory configuration tools
help to set the right levels for the form and function of inventory. The greater the demand and supply
volatility, the greater the need to hold inventory in raw and semi-finished forms.
Table 1. Definition of the Form and Function of Inventory
Determine the best inventory strategy for the form and function of inventory monthly as a part of the
S&OP process. In contrast, to traditional processes focused only on safety stock analysis, use multi-
tier inventory management solutions in the short-term planning horizons in conjunction with traditional
distribution planning and deployment solutions.

Misconception 2: Collaborative Demand Planning Improves
Forecasting. Instead, Use Forecasting Analytics.
Over the last decade, collaborative demand planning emerged as a popular add-on to S&OP
processes. While the process sounds directionally right—asking sales what they are going to sell and
adjusting the forecast—company experience shows that the process of collaborative forecasting
actually introduces noise and bias into the forecast. The reality is that sales knows market trends, but
they are not good at item-level forecasting. Additionally, based on sales bonuses and internal politics,
the process tends to introduce bias into the forecasting process.
Misconception 3: Change Management Is the Same Irrespective
of S&OP Maturity. Instead, Tailor Change Management Based
on Maturity Level.
With each organization having an average of four S&OP processes, the change management plans
need to be carefully linked to S&OP maturity. It is not the case of one-size-fits-all. Some of the most
common change management issues by phase of the S&OP process are outlined in Figure 17.
Figure 17. Change Management by Maturity

Misconception 4: Finance Can Directly Control Supply Chain
Metrics. In Reality, Financially Engineered Companies Have
More Difficulty Making Improvements.
In some companies, like GE, J&J, and Dow Chemical, the financial team plays a heavier hand in
managing supply chain metrics. This is the environment where the supply chain leader struggles with
the end-of-the-quarter inventory targets and forward-pushed sales to make quarterly and yearly
targets. The more financial manipulation of the supply chain metrics, the greater the distortion in the
pattern of a company at the intersection of inventory turns and operating margin. In these cases, it
becomes very difficult for the supply chain team to drive improvement.
Misconception 5: Tie the Demand Plan to Customer Relationship
Management
While this sounds desirable, based on our benchmarking and interactions with customers, the
connection of the demand plan to the sales plan needs to be tackled very carefully, and is not suitable
for direct integration. We often see the degradation of the forecast based on managerial overrides
and sales input. The issue is that the sales input is usually very biased based on incentives.
However, while it is not desirable to directly integrate CRM with an S&OP system, it is useful to get
sales input on market drivers as an input into the demand-planning system. What is the difference?
When a company is focused on drivers, it is insight based on qualitative interviews not direct hard-
coded integration.
It is also useful to compare the forecast used against the naïve forecast to measure Forecast Value
Added (FVA) by the process. The naïve forecast is the use of the prior month shipment value as a
predictor of the current month. In the process of FVA, the naïve forecast is compared to the system
generated forecast to check to see if the process is adding value.

Making a Decision
Many clients ask us for a decision tree to evaluate potential solutions. Here is a short list of solutions
that we recommend against the questions we get asked the most frequently:
• Which solutions are the best fit for the chemical industry? Aspen Tech, Arkieva, Logility, OM
Partners, SAP APO and Triple Point Solutions.
• I am in food and beverage manufacturing, which solutions should I consider? Arkieva, Logility, JDA,
John Galt, OM Partners, SAP APO.
• What solutions do attribute-based forecasting well? JDA, Logility, SAS Institute, and Terra
Technology.
• I am a consumer products company, what solutions should I consider? Exceedra, JDA, John Galt,
Infor, Logility, o9 Solutions, Orchestr8, and SAP APO.
• I would like to connect trade promotion optimization to S&OP. What solutions should I consider?
Exceedra, JDA, John Galt, Logility, o9 Solutions and ToolsGroup.
• Which solutions should I consider to improve the analysis of form & function of inventory? JDA,
John Galt, LLamasoft (Logictools functionality), Logility, SAS Institute, SAP IBP, Terra Technology,
or ToolsGroup.
• I am a small company with 1 to 5 planners. What solutions should I consider? Boardwalktech,
Demand Solutions, John Galt, Logility, and ToolsGroup.
• I am a high-tech company with many deep manufacturing constraints. Which solution should I
consider? Adexa or JDA.
• I need a flexible system for active ingredients in pharmaceuticals or agricultural products. Kinaxis or
E2open.
• I am a distribution-intensive company with a focus on multi-tier distribution. What solutions should I
use? IBS, Logility, or ToolsGroup.
• I am a retail company, which solutions should I consider? JDA or Teradata.
• I am a high-tech company with material constraints and deep bills of materials. What solution
should I consider? E2open (icon-scm Functionality), JDA, and Kinaxis.
• I am a consumer electronics company seeking a solution. What do you suggest? John Galt, JDA,
Kinaxis, Logility, o9, and Steelwedge.
• I am an apparel and fashion company with a need for integration with new-product launch. Adexa,
JDA, Logility, and TXT e-solutions.
• Which solutions can help me to translate volume to profitability? Acorn Systems, Anaplan, Ignite,
John Galt, Jonova, o9 Solutions, River Logic, or Steelwedge.
• I only want to consider SaaS solutions. What should I short-list? Anaplan, Exceedra, Kinaxis, o9,
Orchestr8, Steelwedge.
Conclusion
The purchasing of a technology solution for S&OP sounds easy but it is not. To simplify the process,
focus on the process outlined in this report while balancing the barriers and misconceptions.

Other Reports in This Series
This is the first report Sales and Operations Planning in 2015; however, readers may gain added
value by accessing complimentary reports on Sales and Operations Planning and use of supply chain
applications on our Supply Chain Insights website:
Supply Chain Insights website:
Why is S&OP So Hard?
How S&OP Improves Agility
Sales and Operations Planning: Current State of the Union
Research in Review 2014
Voice of the Supply Chain Leader 2014
Supply Chains to Admire
Maximizing the Return on Investment in Supply Chain Planning
Three Techniques to Improve Organizational Alignment
Supply Chain Visibility in Business Networks

Appendix
The S&OP technologies that can be assembled to solve the puzzle are listed below in alphabetical
order by company name. The order of the listing does not represent solution preference:
1. Adexa
Website: www.adexa.com
Deployment: License
Organization Size: Medium-Large
Type: Demand and Supply Modeling
Overview: Founded in 1994 by Cyrus Hadavi, Adexa is a long-term
player in the supply chain management market. Headquartered in
Los Angeles, California, Adexa has offices in Canada, Asia and
Europe. With the downturn of the market in 2007-2009, the company
became more conservative with less marketing and focus on new
product development.
Relative Costs: $$$-$$$$
Coverage: North America, Europe, Asia
Industries: High-tech/Semiconductors, Consumer-goods, Apparel
and Textiles.
Strengths: The solution has deep modeling for constraint-based
planning with a bigger presence in N.A. and Asia. The modeling is
stronger in the areas of supply than for demand.
Considerations: The solution is not appropriate for process-based
companies. The company recently introduced an inventory
optimization solution and should be considered by Adexa clients as
an add-on module. Adexa is particularly a good fit for larger and
more complex supply chains, especially due to its extensive attribute-
based planning capabilities. For companies seeking depth in
constraint-based modeling for discrete industries that cannot be
found in Oracle or SAP, consider Adexa.
2. Anaplan
Website: www.anaplan.com
Deployment: SaaS
Overview: Robust solution built from the cloud-up and introduced as
a supply chain solution early in 2015. Anaplan was founded in 2006 and is based on four years of
development. It was launched to the public in 2010. It is a platform for business planning on top of data
analysis. The unique solution enables business planners to create applications on top of the cloud. Designed
for people that are familiar with Excel can configure their workspace enables quick deployment in 1-2 months.
The solution has use-case based pricing and tends to be more economical than other alternatives; however, it
should be viewed as a technology for casual and business modelers; not as a tool for core demand and supply
modelers based on the depth of supply chain-specific functionality.
Key for Understanding
Relative Cost:
$$$$$:>1500K
$$$$:1000-1500K
$$$:500-1000K
$$: 200-500K
$: Under 200K
License Software and Software
as a Service (SaaS) costs have
different operating models. For
the purpose of this report, when
a company licenses the solution,
the table represents the first
year total installed costs
(software, hardware, and
implementation) in US $)
When a Software as a Service
solution is deployed, the costs
tables represent the average of
first five years’ costs.
In reading the descriptions,
the term small company is
used for companies less than
250M$, medium companies
are sized from 250M$ to 1B$,
and large companies are
greater than 1B$.

Relative Costs: $-$$
Coverage: North America and Europe
Industries: All
Strengths: Configuration in the live system for cube-based planning, versus a code-generation solution for
deployment into a cloud-based environment. The architecture enables sub-second response enabling the
creation of applications of data that is integrated along with the configuration. Very scalable model.
Considerations: In discussions with customer references, companies would like improvements in
visualization. In large companies, there is a cube size limitation (that few companies will reach). In addition,
Anaplan’s experience with supply chain is new and evolving. So, customers should be prepared to roll-up their
sleeves and work together with Anaplan to develop the S&OP process adaptation.
3. Arkieva
Website: www.arkieva.com
Deployment: License
Overview: Privately funded by DuPont supply chain experts in 1993, Arkieva was initially named Supply Chain
Consultants and marketed a product termed Zemeter. In 2007, the company rebranded with the Arkieva name.
The company is profitable and has a strong relationship with Solventure in Europe.
Relative Costs: $$-$$$$
Industries: Chemicals, Polymers, Plastics, Consumer Products and Food & Beverage
Strengths: The product is a strong constraint modeler for process-based industries. With one of the strongest
production planning capabilities for rhythm wheel planning, the product is recommended for companies in the
chemical industry wanting to develop a feasible plan. Arkieva quietly introduced multi-tier inventory
optimization in 2009. The strength of the product is the translation of supply chain segmentation into cycle
stock management in production scheduling and the use of specialized multi-tier inventory optimization
algorithms for multi-tier inventory optimization. The product extends the multi-echelon idea beyond the
distribution network into the bill of materials network. The client has strong references and reasonable pricing.
Considerations: Arkieva is primarily focused in North American and European markets, and is now try to
expand to Asia and India. It is a stronger fit for manufacturing-centric than distribution-centric corporate
environments. Arkieva partners with Solventure for European deployments. The supply functionality is stronger
than the demand translation capabilities.
4. Aspen Technology
Website: www.aspentech.com
Deployment: License
Overview: Founded in 1981, AspenTech’s genesis was from a joint research project between the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the US Department of Energy. The company entered into the
supply chain management market in 1998 with the acquisition of Chesapeake Software. The solution was
extremely configurable and heavily deployed in process-intensive manufacturing locations. AspenTech has
been through many twists and turns. In 2008, the company was delisted from NASDAQ for failing to meet
financial transparency guidelines. The company was reinstated in 2010. Today, Aspen Technology is seldom a

player in a new S&OP deployment, but there are many legacy assets in the market. As a result, they are
included in this report.
Relative Costs: $$$$-$$$$$
Industries: Chemical, Food/beverage and Consumer Products
Strengths: The solution is a very configurable product and allowing for great depth in process modeling
(reverse bill of materials, multiple levels of constraints and dependent demand for multiple forms of shipment)
for process and mix and pack industries. It has the deepest supply modeling capabilities for the chemical
industry.
Considerations: The solution is not appropriate for discrete companies. The modeling is stronger in supply
than demand planning. Due to the level of configuration capable in the solution, the technology requires a
strong understanding of what is needed in the solution requirements and a strong user skill set to maintain.
Cheaper, and easier-to-use industry solutions for the chemical industry include Arkieva (Previously Supply
Chain Solutions (Zemeter)), OM Partners, and/or WAM Systems (recently acquired by Triple Point).
5. Boardwalktech
Website: www.boardwalktech.com
Deployment: SaaS
Organization Size: Small to Large
Overview: Boardwalktech is a private company based in Palo Alto, California. The company provides
enterprise spreadsheet data management solutions which enable cell-level collaboration for spreadsheet-
based processes. The technology platform leverages a patented database technology which is used to
automate, secure, and integrate spreadsheet-based business planning processes run between users and
systems across the extended enterprise. Many companies look to Boardwalktech to reduce the risk of the
“maverick-spreadsheet user.”
Type: Demand, Finance and Supply Modeling
Coverage: North America
Industries: Crosses many industries but lacks data model depth to model any industry well.
Strengths: The solution is easy to use after deployment. It is a good fit for companies that are used to
spreadsheet modeling, but lack a system of record to keep all the spreadsheets in sync.
Considerations: The cost of the solution is in configuration. Due to the lack of a supply chain data model it is
difficult to model trade-offs in the supply chain well. The solution can improve visibility, but lacks a constraint-
based data model to determine the feasibility of supply or optimization algorithms to ensure the best plan. It is
not a consideration for a supply chain that is supply-constrained or wants to improve demand forecast
accuracy. Additionally, with the number of deployments, the usage should be limited to early adopters.
6. Demand Solutions
Website: www.DemandSolutions.com
Deployment: License
Organization Size: Small-medium
Overview: Founded in 1985, Demand Solutions is owned by Logility, but operates independently. In fact, the
two companies often compete. The solution is deployed in over 75 countries and is sold through a tightly
integrated, and long-established distributor network.

Types: Demand and Inventory
Relative Costs: $$-$$$
Coverage: Global
Industries: Apparel, consumer products, food & beverage and general manufacturing
Strengths: Demand Solutions is easy to use software for small or globally distributed teams. The company
introduced social collaboration with the embedding of Yammer in their recent releases and is constantly
focused on improving ease of use. The product has a nice, intuitive user-interface with strong customer
references.
Considerations: The product has core functionality for simple demand and supply matching, but lacks depth
in demand planning for larger organizations. The company has recently acquired Taylor Manufacturing to
improve supply-based capabilities.
7. E2open
Website: www.e2open.com
Deployment: SaaS
Organization Size: Medium to Large Companies
Overview: Founded in 2000 through investments by High-Tech companies, the cloud-based on-demand
software operates a B2B network for companies like Avnet, Celestica, Cisco, HP, IBM, Lenovo, and L’Oreal.
2014-2015 was a rough ride for E2open. The company went public in 2012 and then was purchased by Insight
in 2015. The company purchased ICON-SCM in 2013 and SERUS Corporation for High-Tech in 2014. While
the company advertises S&OP as a solution category, the offering is really more of an S&OP execution
product to enhance S&OP than an S&OP platform.
Type: Multi-tier S&OP
Coverage: Global
Industries: High-Tech electronics, Consumer Electronics Companies and Consumer Durables
Strengths: E2open is a business network provider for supply chain visibility. With roots in the automation of
procurement and sourcing for high-tech companies, the E2open team is developing wider solutions for multi-
tier ”what-if” capabilities for the acquisition of icon-scm in 2013. The E2open solution is designed to help
companies with multi-tier S&OP that are dependent on an outsourced contract manufacturing network.
Considerations: S&OP is a new area of focus for to the E2open team and the solution is currently under
development. However, the icon-scm integration into the E2open platform is very promising and should be
viewed as a co-development opportunity for existing E2open or icon-scm clients.
8. Enterra Solutions
Website: www.enterrasolutions.com
Deployment: License or SaaS
Organization Size: Medium to Large
Overview: Enterra Solutions is a private company headquartered in Pennsylvania in the United States. The
company provides cognitive learning applications for supply chain management. For mature clients looking to
take automation to the next level for machine learning, consider work with Enterra. With a legacy in building
strong math engines for Oak Ridge Labs and the Department of Defense, Enterra partners with clients to
automate tribal knowledge and harness it into cognitive learning capabilities.
Type: Demand and Supply Orchestration
Relative Costs: $$$$$

Industries: All
Strengths: The solution uses a new technique of rules-based ontologies to map “multiple ifs to multiple thens”
for a more dynamic response for multiple S&OP systems. The solution enables the automation of a “planning
book” to S&OP execution. While this type of solution is a new approach today, look for the use of Enterra
Solutions-like solutions in S&OP execution in the next two to three years.
Considerations: Enterra is early to the market and is only suitable for early adopters with strong analytics
teams looking for a co-development partner to build supply chains that listen, think, learn and then respond.
While artificial intelligence has been discussed for many years, the Enterra Solution is one of the first to apply
the concept.
9. Exceedra
Website: www.exceedra.com
Deployment: License or SaaS
Organization Size: Medium
Overview: Exceedra, a privately held company, formally known as Cube Software, is headquartered in
London. In 2010, the company partnered with Microsoft, to create Procast for demand and sales planning. The
product is stronger in demand than in supply and id designed for small to mid-market manufacturers in
food/beverage and consumer products.
Type: Demand Modeling
Product Name: Procast
Coverage: Europe and North America
Industries: Consumer Products and Food and Beverage
Strengths: The Exceedra tool is designed for companies seeking to optimize go-to-market sales planning as
part of their S&OP processes. The product provides the integration of demand planning, trade promotion
spending and account team planning. It is a tool for consideration for a customer-centric S&OP planning
process with one or two partners.
Considerations: The Exceedra solution is evolving. The product lacks supply planning capabilities and is best
suited for a medium-sized consumer products company looking to do customer-centric demand planning. It
would be a poor choice for a large, global company with multiple S&OP processes.
10. IBM
Website: www.ibm.com
Deployment: License
Overview: IBM is a 93B$ company with 435,000 employees globally. The sale of S&OP software solutions is
an insignificant source of revenue, becoming even less so with the sale of Logictech to LLamasoft in 2015. The
primary assets that the IBM Global Services team deploys to help companies better use technologies for
S&OP are the assets acquired through the Cognos acquisition, and inventory optimization solutions developed
within the IBM Labs.
Type: Inventory Modeling
Coverage: Global
Industries: All

Strengths: The S&OP solution from IBM is a group of purchased technologies that are assembled into
industry solutions on demand on an ad hoc basis as IBM consulting works with clients. This includes the ILOG
manufacturing scheduling product and the Cognos financial modeling product, and the IBM inventory modeling
technologies. These solutions are differentiated, but seldom deployed; and as such lack market concentration.
Considerations: While IBM has many complimentary applications for an S&OP process, as a company it
struggles to put together enough pieces to deliver a total solution. The solution is usually sold by the IBM
consulting team implementing S&OP within a client. The company lacks demand, supply and financial
modeling capabilities; and usually partners, offering add-on IBM software components, to solutions with large
ERP providers like SAP and Oracle to deliver S&OP technology implementations.
11. IBS
Website: www.ibs.net
Deployment: License
Overview: Restructured through investment with Marlin Equity Partners in July 2014, IBS is currently
repositioning in the market. IBS is a global provider of Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) with a focus
on distribution-based industries. The company has less than fifteen deployments of S&OP.
Coverage: Global
Industries: Distribution-centric
Strengths: The IBS product is new and is currently being used by a select number clients. The product has
been designed for distribution-centric companies managing contract manufacturers. Embedded within the
product is functionality for distribution planning for companies managing a long supply chain based on
container shipments.
Considerations: The product is new and should only be considered by IBS clients. It is not a fit for companies
requiring manufacturing planning capabilities. The company is stronger in Europe than in North America.
12. Ignite
Website: www.ignitetech.com
Deployment: License
Overview: Founded in 2000, Ignite is a privately held company. The company acquired Acorn Systems in July
2014. Acorn was one of the leading solutions to calculate and maintain business performance information for
cost-to-serve analysis. Ignite is headquartered in Austin, Texas. Acorn Profitability and Cost Management
solutions combine cost modeling, general ledger data integration, profit calculation and flexible reporting into a
complete solution for guiding better business decision making.
Type: Financial Modeling
Relative Costs: $$$$$
Industries: Retail, Consumer Products, and High-tech & Electronics
Strengths: Deep analytics to understand customer cost to serve and product complexity in the S&OP process.
It is used by advanced manufacturers to understand channel costs of go-to-market strategies in Phase 3 of the
S&OP model. This solution is used to rationalize business complexity in channel strategies, and to aid team

product rationalization efforts.
Considerations: Expensive and requires the support of a sophisticated user and availability of financial data
to drive success. It should never be considered as a piece of stand-alone software for S&OP. Instead, it needs
to be viewed as complimentary financial modeling technology to augment traditional demand and supply
matching and move from volume-based to cost-based S&OP planning.
13. Infor
Website: www.infor.com
Deployment: License
Overview: Infor, a market consolidator of enterprise software, currently has revenues of $2.8 billion in sales
and about $800 million in earnings before interest and taxes in the past 12 months. Founded in 2002 under the
name of Agilisys, Infor rebranded in 2004. In the period of 2002-present, the company acquired/aggregated
many applications. The most significant for the supply chain market are assets from Baan, Formation Systems,
Fygir, Intentia, Lawson, MAPICS, Mercia, and SSA Global. With significant development into the ION
architecture for solution integration and the Ming-Li interface, the Infor solution for S&OP has matured in the
last year.
Coverage: Global
Industries: All
Strengths: The Infor solution has gotten stronger and more robust over the last year. It combines the Lawson
and Infor assets to give a buyer many options for S&OP. The solution is ideal for companies with existing Infor
infrastructures. With the myriad of acquisitions, the company has a rich stable of potential solutions to draw
from to build an industry-specific solution. The former Intentia products have strength in reverse bill of material
modeling, and the Fygir application is the most commonly used tank scheduling application for the wine and
beer industries.
Considerations: The company released a new platform over the last two years including the new S&OP
product. The Infor product now has strong customer references and is maturing in “what-if” capabilities. This
new Infor solution now has less than 50 deployments. The solution is stronger in supply than demand
modeling.
14. JDA
Website: www.jda.com
Deployment: License, hosted, or as a managed service
Overview: JDA, now a private company with over 4000 employees, is based in the United States. Over the
course of the last decade, the company aggregated the assets of Arthur, E3, i2 Technologies, Intactix,
Manugistics, and RedPrairie Software companies. The company completed the promised convergence product
roadmap in 2013 and is currently working on a roadmap for innovation focused on in-memory modeling and
deeper constraint-based modeling.
Type: Demand, Supply and Inventory Modeling
Coverage: Global
Industries: Retail, consumer products, food/beverage, apparel, semiconductor, consumer electronics,
automotive and discrete manufacturers

Strengths: The company has a long legacy of acquired supply chain solutions — E3, Manugistics, i2
Technologies all offering depth of S&OP functionality. With depth of solution demand, inventory and supply
modeling, it is one of the strongest S&OP modeling tools in the market for retail and discrete constraint-based
supply chain planning. The solution for S&OP was defined through the process of rationalizing i2 and
Manugistics assets. With an Excel-like interface and a highly-scalable, in-memory model, the solution supports
multiple views with a simultaneous solve. Users report high satisfaction with ”what-if” modeling and scenario
planning, and are pleased with the improvements in the user interface. Mobile applications are to be released
in 2015.
Considerations: The company is recovering from post-acquisition application confusion. Through the
acquisition, the company retained the support of the high-tech and retail markets, but struggled to preserve
clients in the process-based markets of consumer products and food/beverage. Previous Manugistics
customers are still struggling with the evolution of the solution for the process industries with many companies
defecting to SAP. In general, the solutions lack the visualization technologies and ease of use that you will find
from BI reformers like Anaplan or o9 Solutions.
15. John Galt
Website: www.johngalt.com
Deployment: License or managed service
Organization Size: Small-Medium
Overview: Founded in 1996, John Galt is a privately held company located in Chicago. The Excel-based tool
ForecastX was introduced in 1998 with the Atlas product launched in 2001. The company focuses on providing
solutions to small and mid-sized companies (up to 5B$) seeking an S&OP solution.
Product Name: Atlas and ForecastX Wizard
Type: Demand, Supply Finance and Inventory Modeling
Relative Costs: $-$$$
Coverage: North and Central America, Europe and Australia/New Zealand
Industries: All
Strengths: The company offers two solutions: the ForecastX Wizard and Atlas products. The Wizard
product—with twenty different forecasting techniques—allows users to invest in a small spreadsheet-based
solution and grow over time. The Atlas product, a completely different product from ForecastX, has a fuller set
of features including a new user interface and improved inventory optimization. The company is currently
trialing constraint-based supply and rough cut capacity planning with four clients. John Galt’s legacy is in
demand planning with more recent developments of deterministic inventory modeling and manufacturing
modeling. The product introduced financial modeling via the calculation manager in the past five years.
However, the solution is still deeper in demand than manufacturing constraint planning. It is ideal for a small-to-
medium sized company having 1-50 core planners.
Considerations: The Company is stronger on product development than marketing and sales. As a result, it is
sometimes over-looked in selection processes. John Galt focuses on the small to medium customer that is
seeking a single solution with an easy to use interface with difficult data to model. It does not have the depth of
supply planning of other larger solutions and is not a good fit for larger companies seeking deep supply
planning or trying to harmonize and visualize data across multiple S&OP systems.
16. Jonova
Website: www.jonova.com
Deployment: License, SaaS and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO)

Overview: Jonova is an international provider of software and services for Integrated Business Planning and
performance management. Founded in 1997 by a group of former PTC, Boeing and Booz Allen Hamilton
executives, Jonova is headquartered in Seattle, Washington with distribution, implementation and support
channels worldwide.
Product Name: Explorer Software Suite
Industries: Aerospace, Automotive, Pharmaceutical, High-Tech & Electronics
Strengths: Depth of modeling for profitability analysis on fixed versus variable costs and product portfolio
complexity. It is best used in new-product launch scenario analysis to evaluate platform scenarios. Jonova’s
customers are using it for value-stream modeling, capacity planning and supplier hedging analysis.
Considerations: The product requires a sophisticated user and access to deep financial data. Due to the
breadth and depth of the solution, and the newness of the solution approach, companies should consider using
Jonova Managed Services Offering. When implementing, companies should realize that there are limited
deployments and that the solution should only be considered by an early adopter.
17. Kinaxis
Website: www.kinaxis.com
Deployment: SaaS
Overview: Founded and headquartered in Ottawa, Canada, the origins of Kinaxis date back to 1984. The
product named RapidResponse was introduced in 1995. Prior to 2005, the company was named Webplan. The
company rebranded as Kinaxis with a focus on SaaS deployment strategy. The company was an early
innovator in deploying differentiated cloud-based technologies. In Fiscal Year 2014, the company went public
on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and has raised 100M$ of capital. The company posted revenues of 77M$ in
2014 and currently has 300 employees globally. The solution operates on a proprietary data model and
infrastructure enabling quick “what-if” modeling in S&OP processes.
Product Name: Rapid Response
Coverage: North America, Europe and Asia
Industries: Material-intensive discrete industries, pharmaceutical and material-intensive process-based supply
chains
Strengths: Kinaxis is the strongest discrete-material-intensive solution on the market. The product has deep
“what-if” modeling and strong customer references. New visualization capabilities make decisions easier,
driving insights for the executive S&OP meeting. The 2013 introduction of mobility and the improved user
interface makes the Kinaxis product a better alternative for a boardroom S&OP meeting to enable quick ”what-
if” analysis and visualization of plan alternatives. In 2014, the company also added multi-tier inventory
management. With five references for the inventory management solution, while early, the solution gets strong
references from clients.
Considerations: The product is stronger in the areas of supply modeling than demand planning. It is not the
solution for a company needing a deep demand or supply optimization solution. It is not a strong constraint
manufacturing modeler and should not be considered by companies needing an asset-based constraint supply
modeler. Very large companies have experienced issues with scalability (Greater than 70B$ in revenues), and

the company is currently working on improving parallel processing to improve the scalability of the model. The
company also has an aggressive sales force with strong pricing policies to not discount.
18. LLamasoft
Website: www.llamasoft.com
Deployment: License
Overview: LLamasoft is a provider of network design and inventory optimization solutions. Founded in 1998, in
Michigan in the United States, the company has sales of 40M$ and 150 employees. The company has very
little equity financing with MK Capital providing 6.1M$ to the company as early-stage financing. The company
purchased the inventory management solution Logictools from IBM in 2015 deepening the company’s
capabilities for inventory management.
Type: Inventory Modeling
Coverage: Global
Industries: All
Strengths: The LLamasoft product suite evolved from strong network design capabilities. LLamasoft has
strong references: there are few companies in the industry with the number of positive references that the
LLamasoft team has built. The company has gradually added inventory optimization capabilities over the last
two years and purchased Logictools products—LogicNet Plus, the Inventory and Product Flow Analyst and the
Transportation Analyst products—from IBM in 2015. The purchase of Logictools products deepens the
operational and tactical planning capabilities to deepen S&OP platforms for inventory analysis to embed form
and function of inventory decision making into S&OP planning.
Considerations: While LLamasoft has many complimentary applications for an S&OP process, as a company
it struggles to put together enough pieces to deliver a total solution. The company lacks demand, supply and
financial modeling capabilities; and usually partners, offering add-on LLamasoft software components, to
solutions with large ERP providers like SAP and Oracle to deliver S&OP implementations. While strong in
network design and legacy inventory optimization solutions, most deployments were ad hoc and not enterprise
class with well-established API(s) and systemic deployments. The company’s release of Supply Chain Guru
early next summer should enhance costing and process modeling to improve the support of S&OP processes.
19. Logility
Website: www.logility.com
Deployment: License deployments with recent introduction of hosted solutions
Overview: The Logility group is a subsidiary of American Software. Over the last decade, with a strong focus
on customer service, the company posted a record number of profitable quarters. With a strong focus on
customer satisfaction, the company has a large number of loyal customers for the inventory optimization
solution. The multi-tier inventory optimization solution, Optiant, was purchased in 2010.
Product Name: Voyager
Industries: Consumer products, industrial chemicals, apparel, discrete manufacturing and wholesale
distribution

Industries: Consumer products, apparel, food & beverage, consumer durable manufacturing and wholesale
distribution industries.
Strengths: An easy to use, comprehensive solution with advanced capabilities in demand management,
inventory management optimization/postponement. The product integrates demand and supply in a common
platform and the company introduced a visualization layer in 2015. One of the differentiating factors of the
Logility solution is the new-product launch forecasting capabilities to model and compare multiple business
scenarios. Attribute-based planning (termed by Logility as Proportional Profile Planning) gives users flexibility
in the planning of new products and tracking changes in demand more accurately. The new profiling
capabilities automate more granularity in the demand plan which improves the demand to supply translation
critical for industries with special material requirements or configuration distributions. Logility has also delivered
the depth of solution for inventory modeling and postponement and offers one of the strongest solutions for
S&OP for apparel. The company has strong references and the product is supported by a strong after-sale
support by the organization.
Considerations: The Logility architecture and built-in analytics for visualization lacks the depth of other
options, and may not be appropriate as an S&OP platform connecting multiple S&OP processes. While the
new visualization solution was introduced in 2015, at the time of this report, there are no references to check.
So, users should consider this functionality as new and evolving with a best fit for the early adopter. The
solution deployments are often small and local(with tens and hundreds of users not thousands) within a
division of a Fortune 1000 or a mid-market company. An ongoing challenge for Logility is building stronger
consulting partnerships to deliver the promise of S&OP for larger clients. The solution is not a good fit for
semiconductor or high-tech industry clients, and Logility has more presence in North America than Europe.
20. o9 Solutions
Website: www.o9solutions.com
Deployment: SaaS
Organization Size: Small
Overview: Founded in 2009, by Sanjiv Sadhu (prior founder of i2 Technologies) this privately held company,
deploys a cloud-based configurable solution to automate forecasting and supply planning. The solution is a
strong visualization for the configuration of S&OP planning workflows on the top of a single flexible enterprise
data model using graph technology. The technology is suitable for collaborative workflow for casual and
business users but not core demand and supply modeling. New to the market, the company has less than 15
deployments. The company is stronger on demand management with a connection to demand shaping than
supply and inventory management.
Industries: All
Strengths: Built for the cloud, the o9 solution is designed for quick deployment of a configurable solution.
Clients implement in weeks not months and the solution provides visualization of multiple S&OP systems in the
cloud. The goal is to have a breadth of solutions in the cloud, but at the current time, the only references that
we could source were in the area of demand management and collaborative planning.
Considerations: The solution while heralded as the next generation of planning is quite limited in vision. It
lacks the depth of other solutions and should only be used as a visualization tool for deeper and more capable
solutions.

21. Orchestr8
Website: www.orchestr8.com
Deployment: SaaS
Organization Size: Small-Medium
Overview: Based in the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, and with strong roots in consulting the
Orchestr8 team were asked by their client to provide a software tool to enable Lean and demand-driven
processes. Now with more than a decade of software development the solution helps companies implement
S&OP outside in. The solution is certified by the demand-driven institute and is a marriage of lean and
demand-driven philosophies. The company is new to the North American market
Industries: All
Strengths: The solution is new and evolving, but is very scalable and easy to use. Intuitive process flows with
the ability to manage planning master data distinguish the solution. While the company has less than fifteen
deployments, references including 3M and Avon are positive. The company is small and no-nonsense with a
focus on rapid deployment and client results.
Considerations: The Company is better at product development than marketing and the Orchestr8 team is
actively working on product branding and name recognition programs for its North American Launch. The
company is still evolving consulting and customer service practices. Companies short-listing this solution need
to realize that they are working with a small, no-nonsense team that is evolving.
22. Oliver Wight
Website: www.oliverwight.com
Deployment: License
Organization Size: Small
Overview: Oliver Wight leads business improvement in S&OP through the education, coaching and mentoring
of teams to drive change in S&OP. The company shares a Class A checklist to guide implementation. As part
of the implementation, the company developed a software tool to guide implementations.
Industries: All
Strengths: Complements the Oliver Wight training and enables pilot activities.
Considerations: The solution should only be considered for someone looking for a tool to get started on
S&OP following training. Serious scalability and depth of modeling issues for most organizations as they move
past the stage of a conference room pilot.
23. OM Partners
Website: www.ompartners.com
Deployment: License with a recent introduction of hosting and Software as a Service

Overview: Since its creation in 1985, OM Partners, a privately held Belgium company, has enjoyed steady
growth. With annual sales revenues of 35M euros and a workforce of almost 300 people worldwide, OM
Partners continues its expansion into process-based industries.
Product Name: OM Plus
Coverage: Europe and North America
Industries: Process chemical, food/beverage, paper/packaging and consumer products
Strengths: The product from OM Partners has a strong depth in manufacturing modeling and scenario
modeling. The solution is a flexible toolkit with extreme flexibility in modeling. The solution is stronger in supply
than demand. The company has strong client references and is better known in Europe than other parts of the
world. Many companies struggling with the gaps in SAP APO planning have turned to OM Partners to
augment the gaps in the APO functionality. In the last two years, the company has invested in usability with
improved references for ease-of-use.
Considerations: The solution requires configuration and a deep understanding of the user requirements. The
modeling required for implementation requires a deeper planning skill set than other solution. However, when
properly installed, the solution provides a deep constraint-based optimization and ”what-if” analysis. For S&OP,
the solution lacks the visualization capabilities of other solutions like Oracle, Steelwedge or SAP HANA. It is
also not suitable for a company seeking depth in demand planning.
24. Oracle
Website: www.oracle.com
Overview: Oracle is a 38B$ software provider with a legacy of consolidating supply chain applications. The
current product is based on the Demantra acquisition for demand planning and the JD Edwards acquisition for
supply planning. Work is in progress to introduce a new product to the market in 2016.
Type: Demand, Supply, Financial and Inventory Modeling
Coverage: Global
Industries: Consumer Products, High-Tech, and Discrete
Strengths: Oracle has many piece parts, but lacks a comprehensive solution. The company has a strong
demand planning capabilities and a great visualization platform to show the impact of decisions at the
executive S&OP meeting. The strong user interface of the Oracle solution is appealing to customers. With the
wide-installed base of Hyperion, many companies prefer to use their Hyperion (Oracle acquisition) modeling
capabilities for Stage 3 of Financial Modeling. The company has global presence and support capabilities for
emerging economies.
Considerations: The solution lacks depth of modeling for supply. While the company has a strong demand-
planning tool for all industries, the supply solution is not recommended for distribution-intensive industries due
to the lack of a distribution requirement (DRP) modeling capability. The product lacks a demand translation
platform capability and visualization for multiple S&OP processes. The inventory modeling technology is the
weakest of any multi-tier modeling technology on the market and the demand-planning tool has a stronger
requirement for clean data than other solutions.

25. QuintiQ
Website: www.quintiq.com
Deployment: License
Organization Size: Medium to Large Companies
Overview: Quintiq, founded in 1997 as a Dutch-based company, the company now has headquarters in the
U.S. and the Netherlands. The company is focused on improving supply chain optimization. Positioning as a
company that solves the world’s supply chain problems, Quintiq posted revenues of more than 100M$ before
its acquisition by Dassault Systemes in 2014 for 336M$. The company has 16 offices globally and just over
1000 employees. While customers want to buy solutions, Quintiq is pushing a “puzzle-solving message” which
is confusing for the buyer. The solution should be deployed as an augmentation strategy for S&OP and not a
stand-alone solution.
Type: Inventory Modeling and Custom Applications
Coverage: Global
Industries: Mill Products and Other Process-based Industries
Strengths: The company has built an easy-to-use product focused on helping companies in mill products
deliver a strong S&OP plan. The product is suitable for asset-intensive companies that are more focused on
operations than demand. With strong customer references and an easy-to-use product, companies in mill
products looking to build a feasible plan and align demand and supply should consider Quintiq. The solution
should be considered as an optimization solution for companies that are looking to build a ‘custom solution.’
Considerations: The solution is not a good fit for other industries or for companies seeking a strong solution in
demand planning. The solution is also more suitable for companies with a few focused factories in regional
supply chain organizations than a large company with global operations. The company lacks a well-defined
platform for S&OP.
26. River Logic
Website: www.riverlogic.com
Deployment: Hosted or SaaS
Organization Size:
Overview: Founded in 2000, River Logic, Inc. is a privately held technology firm. The company’s mission is to
establish prescriptive analytics (optimization) as the leading scientific approach to business planning and
decision support.
Industries: All
Strengths: Financial modeling of fixed and variable costs. The product is a complimentary tool for financial
modeling in stage three of the S&OP planning cycle and should be considered if companies are seeking a bolt-
on tool to facilitate the translation of volume into profitability.
Considerations: This technology is a complimentary modeling tool for an S&OP process for financial
modeling. It is not a demand or supply modeler and has limited dashboard capabilities for the executive S&OP
meeting. As such, it should be considered as an add-on to an S&OP platform to complement the process.

27. SAP
Website: www.sap.com
Deployment: License
Overview: SAP is the largest provider of supply chain management software to the market and has provided a
number of solutions for S&OP over the last two decades. The learnings in the first two attempts for an S&OP
specific product—xapplication of S&OP in 2007 and S&OP on HANA in 2012—led to the introduction of SAP
IBP Sales and Operations Planning version 5.0 using HANA in 2013. For most users of SAP, the current focus
is on the use of SAP APO, a part of the SAP SCM 7.0 Business Suite based on Netweaver. (It is no longer
considered a New Dimension product and will be under general support through at least 2025.) SAP APO is
composed of multiple modules SAP APO DP (Demand planning), SAP APO SNP (supply planning) SAP APO
PPDS (production scheduling and GATP (ATP functionality). (The functionality within SAP APO PPDS and
GATP will be moved in the future to ERP in the S4/HANA architecture.) In July 2014, SAP announced the
launch of a new cloud-based architecture for supply chain management that includes S&OP. The product
naming is SAP IBP and includes SAP Integrated Business Planning for Sales and Operations, SAP Integrated
Business Planning for Inventory, SAP Integrated Business Planning for Supply, and SAP Supply Chain Control
Tower. It is a unified data model for demand management, supply planning and financial modeling deployed as
a cloud-based solution operating natively on the HANA architecture. The solutions within IBP contain new
capabilities for collaborative workflow and optimization. It is not a re-write of the SAP APO solution, but is
complimentary to APO as a visualization layer. SAP IBP is a design that is more appropriate for the casual and
business user, while SAP APO is designed with a focus on the functionality for the core modeler.
The SmartOps functionality acquired in 2013 is now re-written and included in the SAP IBP solution. Despite
the new announcements of SAP Supply Chain Management IBP solutions, APO; and its usage in S&OP, will
be around for many years. SAP continues to enhance the APO capabilities.
Type: Demand, Supply and Financial Modeling
Coverage: Global
Industries: All
Strengths: SAP has a strong global presence with a well-established ecosystem of implementers. At 38.3B$
of revenue, the company has financial stability and a strong range of solutions suitable for all industries. The
new SAP HANA solution is an in-memory solution with social collaboration and imbedded “what-if” analysis.
SAP APO is the leading market solution despite the limitations in modeling and what-if analysis. The APO
solution has strong capabilities for role-based security and real-time integration into SAP ERP with the CIF
interface. This makes it an ideal integration platform for a global solution with hundreds and thousands of
users.
The SAP IBP solution for Sales and Operations Planning is being tested by about 30 customers. We were able
to speak to five companies provided by SAP System integrators for this report. Clients like the cloud
deployment and the ease of use, and the ability to collect sales input for the demand plan.
Considerations: The successful use of demand and supply solutions (APO) requires a sophisticated user and
depth of understanding by the system integration in implementation. Many SAP APO implementations that fail
due to a lack of consultant implementation knowledge. Users frequently complain that the SAP APO solution is
hard to use and lacks depth of modeling for both demand and supply; however, it is the most widely deployed
Advanced Planning System in the market. The recent release of the SAP HANA platform offers promise as an
S&OP integration platform for demand translation, process visualization and the harmonization of multiple
S&OP systems. SAP has invested time and money to build an S&OP data model in HANA that can be
deployed multiple ways (license, private and public cloud); however, the HANA solution is still maturing and

Putting Together the Pieces - The S&OP Technology Landscape - 20 AUG 2015

Putting Together the Pieces - The S&OP Technology Landscape - 20 AUG 2015

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Putting Together the Pieces - The S&OP Technology Landscape - 20 AUG 2015

Ähnlich wie Putting Together the Pieces - The S&OP Technology Landscape - 20 AUG 2015 (20)

Mehr von Lora Cecere

Mehr von Lora Cecere (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Putting Together the Pieces - The S&OP Technology Landscape - 20 AUG 2015