본문으로 건너뛰기
← 글 목록
SCM·수익성soonsik ahn

계획 시스템이 있어도 중요한 판단은 밖에서 이뤄진다

Post 2.3 — A Planning System Is Not Yet Intelligence

발주량은 계산하지만, 어떤 제품을 줄여야 이익이 남는지는 알려 주지 않는 시스템이 많습니다. 이 질문에 답하려면 영업·원가·재고·생산능력을 함께 놓고 대안을 비교해야 합니다.

LinkedIn 최초 발행 · 원문 영어
LinkedIn 원문·댓글 보기 ↗

위에는 한국어 요약을, 아래에는 영어 원문을 실었습니다.

Post 2.3 — A Planning System Is Not Yet Intelligence
Many organisations already have a planning system.
That is not the same as having intelligence.

Planning tells you what the rules say should happen next. Reorder points, safety stock, MOQ, production sequences — the system applies the logic it was given.

For stable products, that can work well.

But many of the decisions that shape profit are not resolved by planning logic alone.

Which SKUs should stay and which should go. How a constrained production line should be allocated. Whether a price trade-off is worth accepting. When ageing inventory should be marked down — and by how much.

These decisions sit at the intersection of commercial, financial, and operational judgement. No single function usually owns them. They are settled — well or badly — through cross-functional negotiation.

No single function sees the full trade-off. SCM usually comes closest.

Cost, demand, inventory, capacity, shelf life — these signals all meet there. That is why SCM is often best placed to connect them, simulate the impact of each alternative, and express the trade-off in financial terms that every function can understand.

In many organisations, that still does not happen. Three barriers tend to get in the way.

First, the role itself is often defined too narrowly around execution.

Second, bandwidth. Day-to-day planning is consumed by fire-fighting. The work that would do most to protect profit is repeatedly pushed behind the needs of the day.

Third, data. The inputs required for profit simulation usually sit across multiple systems and functions. By the time they are brought together, the decision window has often narrowed or closed.

The planning system does not usually solve this. Some planning systems extend further — into demand consensus, inventory policy, and medium-term balancing. Even then, the hardest questions often remain outside routine planning: not what the plan is, but which alternative protects the most profit.

It schedules. It replenishes. It raises alerts.

But it does not typically tell you which production mix earns the most margin per constrained hour. It does not show what happens to the portfolio if a SKU is removed. It does not compare alternatives and make clear which one destroys the least value.

Those are intelligence questions.

Planning tells you what should happen next within the logic already defined.

Intelligence connects data across domains, evaluates the trade-off, and puts the financial consequence in front of the right people while the decision is still open.

That is what must change.

#SupplyChain #SCMIntelligence #NoTouchPlanning #DecisionScience #OperationsStrategy #SupplyChainManagement

timeline
← 글 목록LinkedIn에서 대화 이어가기 ↗

함께 읽을 글

SCM·수익성

No-touch Planning은 왜 다시 엑셀로 돌아갈까?

시스템에는 계획을 입력하지만 조건이 바뀌면 엑셀부터 엽니다. 예외 처리와 최종 판단이 여전히 밖에 남아 있다면, 시스템은 수작업을 대신한 것이 아니라 옮겨 놓은 셈입니다.

영어 원문 · 게시물본문 읽기 →
SCM·수익성

진짜 병목은 모델이 아닐 수 있다

영업은 거래처를, 마케팅은 제품 구색을, 생산은 효율을 봅니다. 같은 분석을 보고도 결론이 다른 이유입니다. 시뮬레이션은 갈등을 없애지는 못해도 각 선택에 얼마가 드는지는 보여 줍니다.

영어 원문 · 게시물본문 읽기 →