A new study conducted by Wakefield Research found that three in four (75%) say supply plan failures are most likely to occur at the factory-specific execution stage—not in the forecast itself. And nearly half (47%) report that 10% or more of their company's annual revenue is lost or put at risk as a direct result.
The forecast isn't the failure point. The failure is what happens after the plan leaves the planning system — the work of ensuring materials, suppliers, and production priorities are aligned and ready at the factory level.
That work, called supply readiness, is where manufacturers are consistently breaking down, and new research from LeanDNA shows that investment is solving the wrong problem.
"Manufacturers have made meaningful investments in demand planning, and those capabilities matter. But this research confirms what we see with our customers every day: the critical failure happens after the plan is set. The gap between what was planned and what the factory can actually execute is where revenue gets lost — and right now, most manufacturers don't have the tools to see it, let alone close it," says Andy Ellenthal, CEO of LeanDNA.
Key takeaways:
· Despite making forecasting improvement a top organizational priority in recent years — cited by three in four manufacturers (74%) — the research makes clear this investment has not prevented the disruptions that define day-to-day factory operations. 80% of decision makers acknowledge that forecasting alone cannot account for real-world execution failures. The problem is structural, and it sits downstream.
· More than four in five manufacturers (83%) report supplier changes causing multiple production disruptions each quarter, with more than half (56%) experiencing them at least monthly. Nearly three in four (72%) discovered a material shortage only after production delays were already unavoidable — meaning the risk was present well before it became visible and the window to act had already closed.
· When disruptions are finally detected, the response compounds the damage. More than half of manufacturers (51%) take a week or longer to determine corrective action — a costly lag in environments where production schedules are measured in hours.
· The gap isn't just in how manufacturers are executing — it's in the tools they've been given to do it. Nearly three in four manufacturers (73%) say their ERP can provide visibility into required materials but cannot prevent execution failures. Nearly all (93%) report difficulty getting ERP visibility into actual manufacturing execution outcomes.
· Nearly two-thirds (64%) report spending 10% or more of their total manufacturing budget reacting to disruptions through premium freight, emergency sourcing, and last-minute production changes.
· Over the past 12 months, 84% of manufacturers experienced inventory shortages at least twice and 85% saw on-time delivery disrupted multiple times. Excess inventory — driven by the same misalignment — affected more than 80%. The most immediate costs cited are expediting (37%), production delays (31%), and direct revenue loss (28%).
· Nearly three in four decision makers (74%) say being permanently stuck in reactive mode erodes trust between planning and operations teams, across supplier relationships, and in the credibility of the supply plan itself.
· 77% face direct pressure to improve capital flow, and 82% are concerned that continued factory execution failures could cost them their job. The readiness gap is not an abstract operational challenge. It is a career risk for the people who own it.
· Nearly all decision makers (92%) report that their leadership has at least some confidence in AI to address the misalignment between demand planning and factory-level execution, with 40% expressing a lot, or complete confidence. 80% say AI is essential, not optional, for eliminating execution drag.
