It's Not a Forecasting Problem. New Research Pinpoints Where Manufacturing Readiness and Revenue Actually Goes Missing.
New survey finds 75% of supply plan failures occur at the factory level — and nearly half of manufacturers are paying for it, with 10% or more of annual revenue.
AUSTIN, TX – April 9, 2026 – The supply chain industry has spent years and significant investment improving demand forecasting. According to new research released today by LeanDNA, a leading provider of supply planning and inventory optimization solutions for discrete manufacturing supply chain leaders, that investment is largely solving the wrong problem.
A new study conducted by Wakefield Research among 150 senior-level decision-makers at global discrete manufacturers 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, which LeanDNA calls supply readiness, is where manufacturers are consistently breaking down.
The survey results are available on LeanDNA’s website, and a full report is also available for download.
The Failure Happens After the Plan Is Set
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.
The data bears this out. 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 Planning Tools Manufacturers Rely On Were Never Built for This
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.
The industry's planning infrastructure was designed to define intent, not manage execution. ERP systems and demand planning tools establish what materials should be ordered and when — but they are not built to manage how those decisions hold up against supplier conditions, material constraints, and shifting production realities at the factory floor. The result is a structural blind spot that no amount of better forecasting will resolve.
Without tools capable of managing supply readiness in real time, manufacturers are absorbing the cost in cash. 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.
"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."
— Andy Ellenthal, CEO of LeanDNA
The Readiness Gap Has a Measurable Price: Revenue, Inventory, and Careers
The financial consequences compound quickly. 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%).
The organizational damage runs deeper. 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. A plan that teams do not trust is a plan they will not follow — which produces exactly the siloed, exception-driven operations that define the manufacturing environments most at risk.
For the individuals accountable for these outcomes, the stakes are personal. 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.
AI Is Already Pointing the Way Forward
The research also surfaces a clear signal about where manufacturers see the solution. 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.
The shift manufacturers are describing is specific: from supply planning as a scheduled process that produces a plan to supply planning as a continuous, AI-powered system that ensures the organization remains ready to execute — across every site, every supplier, and every buyer workflow — and is updated in real time as conditions change. That is a fundamentally different standard for the discipline, and the industry is signaling it is ready for it.
"Supply planning is not the output of the demand planning process — it is the first act of execution. The manufacturers who recognize that distinction and invest accordingly will compete differently: with lower inventory, higher delivery reliability, and supply chains that function as a strategic advantage rather than a constant source of firefighting. That is precisely what APEX was built to enable."
— Andy Ellenthal, CEO of LeanDNA
Key Takeaways:
- The Failure Is at Execution, Not in the Forecast. 75% of manufacturers say supply plan failures are most likely to occur at the factory-specific execution stage. Decades of forecasting investment has not closed this gap.
- The Cost Is Quantifiable and Top-Line. 47% of manufacturers report that 10% or more of their annual revenue is lost or at risk due to misalignment between demand planning and factory-level execution.
- Existing Tools Weren't Built for This. 93% report difficulty getting ERP visibility into factory execution outcomes, and 64% spend 10% or more of their manufacturing budget reacting to disruptions they could have prevented.
- The Human Stakes Are as Real as the Financial Ones. 82% of manufacturing leaders fear execution failures could cost them their job, and 74% say reactive operations have eroded organizational trust.
- AI Is Already Essential. 92% of leaders say their organization has at least some confidence in AI to close the planning-to-execution gap, and 80% call it essential for eliminating execution drag.
The full survey results are available here.
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES
The LeanDNA Survey was conducted by Wakefield Research among 150 senior-level decision makers at global discrete manufacturers with a minimum annual revenue of $250M, headquartered in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, in March 2026, using an email invitation and an online survey. Results of any sample are subject to sampling variation. The magnitude of the variation is measurable and is affected by the number of interviews and the level of the percentages expressing the results. For the interviews conducted in this particular study, the chances are 95 in 100 that a survey result does not vary, plus or minus, by more than 8 percentage points from the result that would be obtained if interviews had been conducted with all persons in the universe represented by the sample.
About LeanDNA
LeanDNA powers the world's discrete manufacturing with a single source of truth for factory-first supply planning and inventory optimization. APEX, the AI-powered expert execution platform from LeanDNA, transforms manufacturing complexity into a competitive advantage through AI-driven supply chain insights, recommendations, and actions. APEX transforms data and expertise into optimized decisions and actionability, enabling supply chain teams to improve on-time delivery and working capital levels by gaining visibility into current and incoming materials, taking action based on inventory criticality, real-time collaboration with suppliers, and tracking progress toward inventory optimization goals. Learn more at LeanDNA.com.
Contact (For Media Only):
Jodi Bart Holzband
Classic Bart PR & Communications
jodi@classicbart.com
