The client was implementing a new approach to link their sales forecasting and production planning processes. They needed to optimize their plants across the region in order to ensure they were making the right decisions around production and sales to drive value for the company as a whole. They were struggling to demonstrate value with this new approach to planning, and not seeing the intended benefits of having a fully integrated planning process. Additionally, they were not taking full advantage of reviewing their previous performance against the plan in a way to allow them to make changes to their future plans to increase accuracy.
Planning software transition. Historically the client relied on Excel spreadsheets, word-of-mouth and their own customized planning software solution(s) to tie together plans for the following year. When we began, they were in the process of rolling those plans into a semi-customized software solution, which used the production capabilities of each plant to adjust monthly production to match planned demand.
Data timeliness. At the beginning of each month, the client would begin their planning for the following month, using the information from the previous month’s plan. They would then take most of the month to plan for the next month. This caused the new plan to be based upon data that was over a month old when the new plan was finalized. Having such a gap caused the plan to be inherently less accurate than it could be.
Data uniformity. Despite similar processes and equipment at each location, the plants used different methods to calculate their efficiencies and capacities — there was no consistency; no single source of the truth. The customized software solution being implemented was receiving inconsistent inputs that drove flawed production plans. Since the plans were flawed, each plant was adjusting the parameters for their production to match what they were expecting to produce, NOT what they were able to produce based on their plant setups in the software. This caused a disconnect between the sales and inventory considerations and the operations plan.
Planning focus. Key stakeholders were focused on building the “perfect” 24-month plan, causing the planning process to be more time and effort intensive than necessary. Since the plan was a guide for mid-term strategic decision-making and only needed to be fully accurate for the first quarter, the hours of iterations being invested to solve every issue identified in the full 24 months were not providing the intended benefit. This was exacerbated by the fact that the plan changed every month in response to the results of the previous months, which caused a never-ending cycle of iterations and “solving” the same problems month after month.
COVID-19. Since the project kicked off during mid-2020, the protocols and precautions necessary to address health concerns prevented the project team from full in-person engagement with the client. Not everyone from the client or our project team was able to be onsite.