Bibliographic record
Abstract
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | This column discusses various aspects of the Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) planning horizon in terms of the length of and the foci of decision making within it. A Telescoping Planning Horizon approach is introduced that extends the planning horizon based on all supply-demand lead times, as well as focuses on various decision-making and decision-support data used in the short-term versus the long-term segments within the horizon.During a visit to a well-known semi-conductor manufacturer to conduct research on its Demand Management processesthat I define as the matching of supply and demand-I met with a young woman who wanted my advice concerning implementing a Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) process. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the company had asked her to start an S&OP process among executives. He made a good choice because during our conversation I found out that she had been at the company for some and was known as a thoughtful, deliberate consensus builder. She was an ideal person to moderate the various meetings that would take place among executives. I advised her to use her skills in building the requisite consensus-based process.Then she said to me that she was concerned that the COO wanted the process to focus only on the immediate fiscal quarter.This planning horizon is too short for executives to have full impact on the future. Sales and marketing activities are already in place and difficult to change significantly during a quarter, and supply is constrained within that window of as well. It's not really a good meeting for executives to impact performance in a meaningful way because it's often too detailoriented and operational. My advice to her was to not be initially concerned about that. She should focus primarily on getting a meaningful routine process started. However, over she should try to convince the COO to move out the planning horizon to at least 6, possibly up to 18 months, consistent with typical S&OP planning horizons at most other companies.PLANNING HORIZONS, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVESMy Fall 2011 Journal of Business Forecasting column,S&OP:The Linchpin Planning Process, included Figure 1, which depicts the three types of planning processes that companies typically conduct. The planning horizon for Strategic Planning is typically three or more years out and might be driven by a snapshot of the company's vision at that in the future, or by a year-to-year evolutionary path towards it. Output from the planning process includes Strategic Objectives and Goals that ought to drive Tactical Planning processes, thereby enabling these to provide the requisite linkage from strategy to operations. Tactical processes should in turn then drive daily Operational Planning and Scheduling that might typically have a planning horizon that looks out one day and possibly up to a few weeks on a day-today or week-to-week basis.S&OP is the Tactical Planning process that matches demand and supply over a planning horizon that typically looks out from 6 to 18 months into the future. Demand forecasts that drive the plans, as well as the demand and supply plans themselves, are typically expressed with time buckets detailing week-to-week or month-to-month. The process has been extremely successful over the past two decades in being implemented by a lion's share of Fortune 500 companies. In fact, many believe that over it will evolve into the de facto Integrated Business Planning (IBP) process, since this type of process doesn't formally exist at most companies that have already implemented an S&OP process.The S&OP (as well the future IBP) process will have the major objective of helping to ensure that companies achieve annual/quarterly financial performance goals. As such, a crossfunctional S&OP team of managers will be responsible for routinely assessing whether a company is on a path towards achieving its financial goals and, if not, re-charting a path to get there or changing the goals to be more realistic. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.015 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".