Retail Supply Chains: Demand and Replenishment Planning System Selection

‍

It’s 7:45am on a Monday. The trading team is already in “hotlist mode”: a seasonal line has sold through faster than expected, a promoted item has landed late, and the DC is sitting on slow-moving stock nobody wants. Store teams are asking why “the system” ordered too much of one product and not enough of another. Meanwhile, Finance is watching inventory creep up and asking the familiar question: How can we hold less stock without making service worse?

For many Australian retailers, this tension has become the new normal. Demand is more volatile, promotions are more complex, lead times are less forgiving, and customers expect high availability across store and online. In that environment, demand and replenishment planning is no longer a back-office process — it’s a competitive capability.

And that’s exactly why “system selection” matters. The right planning platform can help you:

• sense demand shifts earlier and respond faster
• order the right stock, in the right quantities, to the right locations
• reduce working capital tied up in inventory
• protect availability during promotions and peaks
• improve planner productivity through exception-based workflows

The wrong platform (or a platform chosen for the wrong reasons) can lock you into years of workarounds: spreadsheet shadow systems, manual overrides, mistrust in forecasts, and benefits that never quite land.

This article is a practical guide for Australian retailers on selecting demand and replenishment planning systems — including how to think about vendors such as RELEX, GAINS, o9, SAP, Kinaxis, and others shown in the analyst landscape you’ve probably seen floating around the industry.

‍

What “demand and replenishment planning” really covers

Let’s clear up a common confusion: retailers often use “forecasting”, “planning”, and “replenishment” interchangeably — but the system capabilities you need depend on which decisions you’re trying to improve.

At a minimum, demand and replenishment planning typically includes:

Demand planning (forecasting)

• baseline forecasts by item/location/channel
• seasonality, trend, events, and calendar effects
• promotions and price impacts
• new item introduction and lifecycle modelling
• intermittent/erratic demand handling (common in long-tail ranges)

Inventory and replenishment planning

• store and DC ordering policies (min/max, order cycles, safety stock)
• lead time and supplier constraints (MOQs, pack sizes, delivery days)
• multi-echelon logic (DC + store, sometimes supplier + DC + store)
• allocation and rebalancing (especially around promotions)
• shelf-life / freshness constraints (critical in grocery and QSR-adjacent retail)

Execution workflows

• exception management (what needs attention today)
• collaboration across merchandising, supply chain, and suppliers
• performance reporting and KPI tracking (availability, inventory, waste, forecast bias)

Some platforms focus heavily on retail replenishment execution (auto-ordering, store/DC workflows). Others major on enterprise planning and scenario orchestration (IBP-style planning, concurrent scenario modelling). Many promise to do everything — but in practice, strengths differ.

The trick is to be clear about the problems you’re solving first, then select the system that’s genuinely fit-for-purpose.

Why Australian retailers have some unique planning headaches

If you’ve worked across Australian retail (grocery, specialty, apparel, hardware, pharmacy, convenience, or department), you’ll recognise a few local realities that shape system requirements:

• Long supply lines and import exposure: Higher reliance on overseas manufacturing and shipping means longer, more variable lead times.
• A stretched geography: Serving metro and regional locations creates different replenishment rhythms, transport constraints, and store capacity realities.
• Weather and event sensitivity: Demand can swing sharply with heatwaves, storms, public holidays, sporting events, and localised disruptions.
• Omni-channel complexity: Click & collect, ship-from-store, endless aisle, marketplace ranges — all add noise to “true” demand signals.
• High SKU counts and range churn: Especially in specialty and apparel, where newness and lifecycle planning are central.
• Promotional intensity: Promotions can distort history, and poor promo modelling is one of the fastest ways to lose trust in a planning system.

A selection process that ignores these realities often ends with a platform that looks great in a global demo — but struggles in the day-to-day of Australian trading.

When it’s time to move beyond ERP and spreadsheets

Plenty of retailers run “good enough” planning with ERP replenishment parameters and a lot of human effort. But there are common signs you’ve outgrown it:

• Planners are spending most of their time fighting exceptions, not improving outcomes
• Forecasts are heavily overridden because the team doesn’t trust them
• Promotions create chaos: stock-outs in some locations, excess in others
• Store ordering is inconsistent, and “hero operators” are propping up the system
• Inventory is rising, but availability still isn’t where you want it
• You can’t easily model trade-offs (availability vs inventory vs waste vs capacity)
• New item demand is guesswork and repeated across teams in different spreadsheets

If that sounds familiar, you’re in the zone where a dedicated demand and replenishment platform can create value — but only if you select and implement it properly.

The vendor landscape: what the “Magic Quadrant” view does (and doesn’t) tell you

Industry analysts often group supply chain planning vendors into categories like leaders, challengers, visionaries, and niche players. In a recent snapshot (as at March 2025), vendors such as OMP, Kinaxis, and RELEX were positioned strongly, with players like o9 and Blue Yonder also prominent, and other well-known vendors (including SAP, Oracle, Logility, ToolsGroup, Manhattan Associates, and others) appearing across the broader landscape.

That kind of view is useful — as a starting point. It can help you build a longlist and sanity-check market relevance.

But here’s the catch: a quadrant doesn’t know your supply chain.

It doesn’t know:

• whether your core issue is promo forecasting or store ordering discipline
• whether your range is stable or churn-heavy
• whether you need true multi-echelon optimisation or simpler policies
• whether your master data is strong enough to support automation
• whether you need rapid deployment or can tolerate a longer program

So treat analyst positioning as a map, not a decision.

Your selection should be anchored in use cases, data reality, and operating model fit.

A practical system selection approach that actually works

Below is a selection approach we see succeed repeatedly — because it forces clarity early, tests vendors with your reality (not theirs), and avoids “feature theatre”.

1) Start with outcomes, not modules

Write down, in plain language, what “better” looks like. Examples:

• Improve on-shelf availability in priority categories
• Reduce DC overstocks and aged inventory
• Stabilise promotional execution and reduce post-promo residuals
• Increase planner coverage (more SKUs per planner with the same team)
• Reduce manual store ordering variability

Then translate those into measurable KPIs (availability, inventory turns, waste, forecast accuracy/bias, service level, order stability). You don’t need perfect baseline maths on day one — but you do need alignment on direction.

2) Get specific about planning decisions

A demand and replenishment platform supports decisions like:

• How much should we buy? (buy quantities, order cycles, supplier constraints)
• Where should we hold it? (store vs DC, allocation logic)
• When should we move it? (lead times, transport cadence, capacity windows)
• What should we do when reality changes? (exceptions, alerts, collaboration)

Document the key decisions, who owns them, and what data is used today. This becomes your requirements backbone.

3) Be honest about data readiness (and fix it early)

System selection often fails because the glossy demo hides a hard truth: planning tools are only as good as the data feeding them.

In retail planning, the usual pain points are:

• item/location history gaps or inconsistent hierarchies
• promotion flags that don’t match what happened in stores
• lead times stored as “best guess” rather than reality
• pack sizes, MOQs, and supplier calendars not maintained
• substitution effects not captured (especially in grocery/pharmacy)
• store capacity / shelf constraints not represented

A smart selection process includes a data diagnostic early — not as a separate “later” project. If you don’t know the state of your data, you’ll misjudge both vendor fit and implementation effort.

4) Define “must-have” capabilities by use case

Avoid 400-line requirements spreadsheets that nobody reads. Instead, define a set of use-case test scripts.

For example:

• A promoted line with cannibalisation and multiple price points
• A new item launch replacing an older item
• Seasonal demand with short selling windows
• A supplier disruption requiring reallocation and revised ordering
• A long-tail SKU with intermittent demand (stop/start pattern)

Then ask vendors to walk through these scenarios using realistic assumptions — ideally with a small proof-of-concept using your own data.

This is where differences between platforms become obvious.

5) Assess fit across five dimensions (not just “features”)

When comparing platforms such as RELEX, GAINS, o9, SAP, Kinaxis (and others), we recommend scoring across five practical dimensions:

Capability fit
Can it do what you need for demand forecasting, promo modelling, multi-echelon replenishment, and execution workflows?

Retail operating model fit
Does it support how your teams work — category, store ops, supply chain, suppliers — with the right exception and collaboration tools?

Integration and architecture fit
Will it integrate cleanly with ERP, POS, WMS, OMS, supplier systems, data platforms? Does it support APIs, event-based signals, or only batch?

Usability and adoption fit
Can planners and trading teams use it without a PhD? Are workflows intuitive? Is it configurable without endless customisation?

Commercial and delivery fit
Does the vendor have a delivery model that matches your timeline and internal capacity? Is the total cost of ownership realistic?

6) Don’t skip the “people and process” question

A planning platform is not a magic wand. If your replenishment process is unclear, store ordering discipline is inconsistent, or exception governance doesn’t exist, the system will amplify noise — not fix it.

A robust selection includes:

• role clarity (who overrides what, when)
• exception thresholds and decision rights
• how merchandising and supply chain collaborate
• how suppliers are engaged (and what data is shared)

This is also where benefits are won or lost.

Vendor considerations (a simple overview)

Every retailer asks: “So which system is best?” The more useful question is: “Which system is best for our context, constraints, and ambition?”

Here are some grounded, non-hype ways to think about a few common platforms:

RELEX

Often shortlisted by retailers looking for strong retail-specific forecasting and replenishment, particularly where store and DC execution and exception workflows matter. It’s commonly considered when the goal is to lift availability while improving inventory efficiency with practical retail logic (including promotion and assortment complexity).

GAINS

Frequently associated with replenishment optimisation and inventory planning, particularly in environments that want to get more disciplined about ordering policies, service levels, and multi-echelon behaviour. It can be a strong option when the key pain is replenishment outcomes and inventory settings rather than broader enterprise planning.

o9 Solutions

Often considered for organisations wanting an integrated planning environment with strong scenario and cross-functional planning capability. If you’re aiming to connect demand planning to broader commercial and supply decisions, it can be relevant — particularly where the ambition is bigger than “just replenishment”.

SAP (e.g., integrated planning options)

Common in retailers already running SAP as their backbone and looking for tighter integration. The trade-off is often between integration simplicity and best-of-breed retail planning depth — which is why it’s important to test SAP’s planning capabilities against your specific retail scenarios, not generic manufacturing-style planning demonstrations.

Kinaxis

Known for concurrent planning and scenario responsiveness in complex environments. It can make sense where retailers want stronger end-to-end planning orchestration across supply constraints, responsiveness, and scenario trade-offs — particularly when speed of replan matters.

Others you may see in the landscape

Depending on your needs, you may also assess platforms such as Blue Yonder, OMP, Oracle, Logility, ToolsGroup, Manhattan Associates, and specialist players. Some are stronger in broader supply chain suites, some in retail allocation or execution, and some in specific planning niches.

The selection takeaway: don’t choose a system because it’s famous — choose it because it wins your use-case tests with your data and your workflows.

The shortlist mistake almost everyone makes

Most shortlists are built on reputation, analyst positioning, and what peers are doing. That’s understandable — but it’s risky.

A better way to shortlist is to segment vendors by what you actually need most:

• If the priority is retail replenishment execution and store/DC workflows, weight vendors with deep retail replenishment DNA.
• If the priority is enterprise scenario planning and cross-functional orchestration, weight vendors known for planning concurrency and scenario modelling.
• If the priority is integration with an existing ERP stack, test “native” options — but still validate capability depth and usability.

This is also where you decide whether you’re looking for:

• a best-of-breed planning tool connected into your ecosystem, or
• a broader planning suite that attempts to cover multiple planning horizons and functions.

There isn’t a universal right answer — but there is a right answer for your operating model.

Proof-of-concept: where good selections are won

If you do one thing differently in your next system selection, do this: run a proof-of-concept that reflects real retail complexity.

A practical PoC doesn’t have to be months long. But it should include:

• a handful of categories with different demand patterns
• a mix of metro and regional stores
• promotion history and price changes
• DC-to-store lead times and supplier constraints
• clear evaluation criteria agreed upfront

Then assess:

• forecast performance (including bias, not just accuracy)
• replenishment recommendations and stability
• ability to handle constraints (MOQs, pack sizes, delivery days)
• usability: how quickly planners can act on exceptions
• integration approach: what’s required to industrialise it

This avoids the classic trap: buying a platform based on “demo confidence” and discovering reality only after contracts are signed.

Implementation realities: don’t underestimate the last mile

Even the best system selection can fall over reminding stores to:

• receive stock correctly
• keep inventory records accurate
• follow replenishment discipline
• trust automated recommendations

The best implementations treat demand and replenishment as a capability rollout, not just a technology project.

What tends to work well:

• start with a controlled scope (a few categories/regions)
• stabilise master data and supply parameters early
• build planner confidence through transparent logic and sensible overrides
• define governance: when to override, and how to learn from overrides
• invest in training that’s role-based and practical, not generic

What tends to go wrong:

• trying to “big bang” every category and store at once
• customising the platform heavily to replicate old habits
• relying on one or two power users to keep it running
• under-resourcing change management and store engagement

How Trace Consultants can help (without vendor bias)

System selection is one of those rare moments where you can set your retail supply chain up for years — or lock in complexity for years. It’s also an area where independent support pays for itself because the costs of a wrong decision are so high (time, distraction, implementation spend, and opportunity cost).

Trace Consultants supports Australian retailers through the full demand and replenishment planning journey, including:

1) Strategy and operating model clarity

• define the target planning outcomes and KPIs
• map planning processes and decision rights
• design exception workflows that match how retail teams operate

2) Requirements and use-case design (fit-for-purpose, not bloated)

• convert business pain points into testable system requirements
• build realistic retail scenarios for vendor demonstrations and PoCs
• establish scorecards that balance capability, usability, and integration

3) Data readiness and integration planning

• assess forecast/replenishment data quality and gaps
• define integration architecture with ERP, POS, WMS, OMS, data platforms
• prioritise the “data fixes” that actually move the needle

4) Vendor evaluation and selection support

• longlist/shortlist guidance based on your needs (not ours, not theirs)
• structured RFP management and commercial evaluation
• support contract negotiation with a focus on delivery outcomes

5) Implementation governance and benefits realisation

• program governance, risk management, and rollout planning
• change management support to drive adoption (especially with stores)
• KPI tracking to make sure the system delivers the promised outcomes

Importantly, we can do this vendor-agnostically — helping you choose the platform that best fits your retail context, then supporting delivery in a way that sticks.

A simple way to start (even if you’re not ready for an RFP)

If you’re early in the journey and not ready to talk to vendors yet, start with three practical steps:

1. List your top 10 planning “failure modes” (stock-outs, excess, promo misses, slow response, etc.)
2. Pick 3–5 categories that represent different demand patterns and agree your success metrics
3. Run a data diagnostic on those categories: demand history quality, promo flags, lead times, pack sizes, hierarchy consistency

That alone will sharpen your system requirements dramatically — and it will prevent you from buying a tool that your data and operating model can’t support.

Closing thought: choose the platform your teams will trust

Retail planning systems don’t fail because the maths is wrong. They fail because the business doesn’t trust them, or because the workflows don’t match how people actually work under pressure.

The best demand and replenishment planning platform is the one that:

• makes sensible recommendations in your real-world scenarios
• integrates cleanly into your ecosystem
• supports exception-based retail workflows
• is transparent enough to earn trust
• can be implemented without turning into a multi-year distraction

If you’d like a second set of eyes on your requirements, shortlist, or proof-of-concept approach — Trace Consultants can help you move faster, reduce risk, and land benefits you can actually see in store and in the DC.

‍

Technology programs don’t fail because the software is wrong. They fail when the business hasn’t clearly defined how it wants to operate. Business integration creates clarity before delivery begins and sets transformation up for success.

Across government, defence, FMCG, retail, manufacturing and infrastructure, we see the same pattern repeat. Organisations invest heavily in platforms, automation and digital tools, expecting outcomes to follow. Instead, they encounter rework, delays, cost overruns, and solutions that don’t quite fit how the business runs.

This is where business integration matters.

Technology doesn’t deliver outcomes. Business clarity does.

Transformation succeeds when there is a clear, business-owned blueprint before delivery begins. One that defines outcomes, processes, data, roles, and governance in a way that technology can actually support.

Business integration focuses on the what and the why before the how. It creates alignment between strategy and execution, ensuring systems integrators and vendors are building against a coherent, agreed view of the future state. Without this foundation, even the best technology struggles to deliver value.

What business integration really means in practice

At its core, business integration is about designing the future state of the business before a single line of configuration or code is written.

That means stepping back from tools and vendors and answering more fundamental questions:

• How should the organisation operate end to end?
• What decisions need to be made, by whom, and using what information?
• Where do processes, data, and accountability break down today?
  What must change to support strategic objectives, KPIs, and customer outcomes?

Business integration connects strategy, operations, technology, and change into a single, coherent view. It ensures delivery teams are not guessing what success looks like.

Reducing delivery risk before it shows up

One of the biggest benefits of a business-led integration approach is risk reduction. When current state processes are poorly understood, or future-state impacts aren’t explored early, risks surface late. Often during build, testing, or go-live, when changes are most expensive and disruptive.

A structured business integration phase brings those risks forward. Operational constraints, data dependencies, compliance impacts, and change requirements are identified before delivery begins. This allows organisations to make informed decisions early, rather than reacting under pressure later.

The result is fewer surprises, less rework, and a smoother path to adoption.

From intent to execution, without losing momentum

Many organisations are clear on their ambition but struggle to translate that intent into executable plans.

Business integration bridges that gap. It turns high-level strategy into:

• Clearly defined processes and operating models
• Vendor-neutral functional and non-functional requirements
• Prioritised backlogs and delivery roadmaps
• Benefits frameworks that support governance and funding decisions

This creates a strong line of sight from strategy through to implementation, giving executives confidence that what gets built will actually deliver the outcomes they expect.

A business-owned blueprint sets delivery up for success

The most effective transformation programs share a common trait, the business owns the design. When future-state processes, data flows, KPIs, and governance are defined and agreed upfront, systems integrators can focus on what they do best. Building and configuring solutions with confidence, speed, and precision.

The outcome is not just a successful implementation, but a solution the organisation understands, adopts, and can evolve over time.

Designing it right before you build

In an environment of increasing complexity, multi-vendor ecosystems, and constant disruption, organisations can’t afford to treat business design as an afterthought. Business integration is not an optional layer, it is the foundation that determines whether transformation delivers lasting value or becomes another expensive lesson.

Design it right before you build. Trace helps organisations clearly define how they want to operate so delivery is simpler, faster, and far more likely to succeed.

Download the full statement

A concise, shareable overview of our Business Integration capability and how we help organisations design for execution before build begins.
‍
→ Download the Business Integration Capability Overview

Start a conversation

If you’re planning a major transformation, talk to Trace about reducing execution risk and setting delivery up for success.

→ Contact us

For decades, Australian manufacturing supply chains were designed around a relatively simple premise: global sourcing, predictable lead times, steady demand, and incremental improvement. Cost efficiency was king, inventory was treated as a necessary evil, and supply chain was often viewed as an operational function rather than a strategic one. That world no longer exists.

Over the past five years, Australian manufacturers have experienced a sustained period of disruption that has fundamentally changed how supply chains are designed, governed, and invested in. Global shocks, local labour constraints, inflationary pressure, evolving customer expectations, and rapid advances in digital technology have combined to force a rethink of what “good” supply chain performance actually looks like.

This article explores how manufacturing supply chains in Australia are changing, why those changes are proving so challenging, and what manufacturing leaders need to do to stay competitive in this new environment.

The end of “set and forget” supply chains

One of the most significant shifts in Australian manufacturing is the move away from static, long-range supply chain designs.

Historically, many manufacturers invested heavily in network design, sourcing strategies, and planning systems, then expected those decisions to hold for a decade or more. Supply chains were optimised once, with limited appetite for revisiting assumptions unless something went seriously wrong.

Today, that approach is no longer viable.

Australian manufacturing supply chains are now expected to be:

• Continuously reviewed
• Highly responsive to demand and supply volatility
• Flexible enough to adapt to geopolitical, economic, and regulatory change

Network structures, sourcing strategies, inventory policies, and production footprints are increasingly viewed as living systems, not fixed assets. This shift is driving more frequent strategic reviews and a stronger connection between supply chain decisions and enterprise-level strategy.

Resilience has overtaken pure cost optimisation

Perhaps the most visible change in Australian manufacturing supply chains is the reprioritisation of resilience. While cost remains critical, manufacturers have learned often painfully, that the cheapest supply chain is not necessarily the most competitive. Extended disruptions have exposed the true cost of brittle, overly lean supply chains that lack redundancy, visibility, and flexibility.

As a result, many Australian manufacturers are now actively reassessing:

• Single-source dependencies
• Offshore manufacturing concentration
• Supplier financial health and operational risk
• Safety stock and decoupling strategies
• Lead time exposure and variability

Resilience is no longer treated as insurance; it is increasingly viewed as a source of competitive advantage. Manufacturers that can continue to supply customers during disruption win trust, market share, and pricing power. This does not mean returning to inefficient stockpiling. Instead, it means smarter resilience, underpinned by data, scenario modelling, and segmented service strategies.

Supply chain is now a board-level topic

Another defining change in Australian manufacturing is the elevation of supply chain to the executive and board agenda.

Supply chain performance now directly impacts:

• Revenue continuity
• Working capital
• Customer satisfaction
• ESG commitments
• Corporate risk exposure

As a result, boards and executive teams are asking more sophisticated questions about supply chain capability, maturity, and investment priorities.

This shift has led to:

• Greater scrutiny of supply chain KPIs beyond cost
• Increased demand for transparency and visibility
• Stronger alignment between operations, finance, and strategy
• More structured governance of supply chain decisions

Manufacturing supply chains are no longer something leaders only discuss when there is a problem. They are becoming a core pillar of enterprise performance management.

Demand volatility is forcing planning model redesign

Demand patterns for Australian manufacturers have become more volatile, less predictable, and more fragmented.

Contributing factors include:

• Shorter customer order cycles
• Greater product customisation
• Channel proliferation
• Faster shifts in end-consumer behaviour
• Increased promotional and pricing activity

Traditional forecasting approaches often heavily reliant on historical averages, are struggling to cope with this reality. In response, manufacturers are rethinking how they plan demand and supply.

Key changes include:

• Moving from forecast accuracy to forecast usability
• Greater emphasis on scenario planning
• More frequent re-planning cycles
• Improved collaboration between sales, operations, and finance

Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP), and its evolution into Integrated Business Planning (IBP), is becoming a critical capability rather than a compliance exercise.

Inventory is being reframed as a strategic asset

Inventory management has long been a tension point for Australian manufacturers. Too much inventory ties up capital and increases risk. Too little inventory threatens service, production continuity, and customer relationships. What has changed is how inventory is being discussed and governed.

Rather than applying blanket inventory targets across the business, leading manufacturers are now:

• Segmenting inventory by customer, product, and risk profile
• Explicitly linking inventory levels to service promises
• Balancing working capital objectives with resilience requirements
• Using inventory as a buffer where it delivers the most value

This more nuanced approach requires better data, stronger planning discipline, and closer alignment between finance and operations. Inventory is no longer simply a cost to be minimised, it is a lever to be deliberately deployed.

Manufacturing footprints are being reassessed

Australian manufacturers are also revisiting where and how production occurs.

While reshoring and nearshoring are often discussed, the reality is more complex. For most organisations, the question is not whether to abandon offshore manufacturing, but how to build a balanced, risk-aware manufacturing footprint.

This includes:

• Evaluating dual-sourcing or multi-site production strategies
• Assessing local manufacturing for critical or high-risk products
• Reviewing capacity flexibility and changeover capability
• Understanding the total landed cost rather than unit cost alone

Manufacturing footprint decisions are increasingly being made in conjunction with supply chain, rather than in isolation.

Digital enablement is accelerating, but unevenly

Technology investment in Australian manufacturing supply chains is accelerating, but adoption remains uneven.

Many organisations have invested heavily in ERP platforms, planning systems, and reporting tools, yet still struggle with:

• Poor data quality
• Limited system integration
• Over-complex planning processes
• Low user adoption

At the same time, newer approaches including advanced analytics, automation, and low-code solutions are enabling faster, more targeted improvements without wholesale system replacement.

The key shift is not simply adopting more technology, but:

• Designing processes first
• Selecting fit-for-purpose tools
• Ensuring usability for frontline and planning teams
• Embedding governance and change management

Digital enablement is increasingly viewed as an ongoing capability rather than a one-off project.

Workforce constraints are reshaping operations

Labour availability and skills shortages are having a profound impact on Australian manufacturing supply chains.

Challenges include:

• Difficulty recruiting skilled operators and planners
• Increased reliance on casual or contingent labour
• Rising wage costs
• Greater safety and fatigue management requirements

In response, manufacturers are:

• Redesigning workforce models and shift patterns
• Investing in workforce planning and scheduling capability
• Automating manual and repetitive tasks
• Improving visibility of labour demand and capacity

Workforce considerations are now deeply intertwined with supply chain design, planning, and execution decisions.

Sustainability expectations are becoming operational

Sustainability is no longer confined to reporting or corporate messaging. For Australian manufacturers, it is increasingly shaping day-to-day supply chain decisions.

This includes:

• Reducing transport emissions
• Improving energy efficiency in manufacturing and warehousing
• Minimising waste and obsolescence
• Improving supplier transparency and compliance

Rather than treating sustainability as a standalone initiative, leading organisations are embedding it into supply chain strategy, procurement decisions, and performance metrics.

The challenge lies in balancing sustainability goals with cost, service, and resilience — particularly in an inflationary environment.

How Trace Consultants can help Australian manufacturers

As manufacturing supply chains become more complex and strategically important, many organisations are recognising the value of independent, specialist support. Trace Consultants works with Australian manufacturers to help them navigate this changing landscape with clarity and confidence.

Support typically includes:

Supply chain strategy and operating model design

Helping organisations align their supply chain design with business strategy, customer expectations, and risk appetite, ensuring supply chain decisions support long-term objectives.

Network and Manufacturing Footprint Reviews

Providing objective analysis of warehouse, transport, and manufacturing networks to identify opportunities to improve cost, resilience, and service performance.

Planning capability and S&OP / IBP design

Supporting the design and implementation of pragmatic planning frameworks that improve decision-making without unnecessary complexity.

Inventory and working capital optimisation

Helping organisations strike the right balance between inventory investment, service levels, and resilience, using data-driven segmentation and policy design.

Technology and digital enablement

Assisting manufacturers to select, design, and deploy fit-for-purpose digital solutions that improve visibility, automation, and planning effectiveness.

Workforce planning and operational efficiency

Supporting workforce modelling, rostering, and productivity improvement initiatives to address labour constraints and rising costs.

Trace Consultants brings a practical, implementation-focused approach grounded in real-world manufacturing and supply chain experience, helping organisations move beyond theory to tangible outcomes.

What manufacturing leaders should focus on now

Australian manufacturing supply chains are unlikely to become simpler in the years ahead. Uncertainty, volatility, and competitive pressure will remain defining features of the operating environment.

Leaders should focus on:

• Building adaptable supply chain strategies
• Investing in planning and decision-making capability
• Treating resilience as a strategic asset
• Aligning supply chain, finance, and operations
• Taking a pragmatic, staged approach to digital enablement

The manufacturers that succeed will be those that treat supply chain not as a cost centre, but as a source of competitive advantage.

Final thoughts

The transformation of manufacturing supply chains in Australia is well underway. While the challenges are significant, so too are the opportunities for organisations willing to rethink long-held assumptions and invest in capability where it matters most.

In an environment where disruption is the norm rather than the exception, the ability to sense, respond, and adapt through the supply chain will increasingly define manufacturing success. The question is no longer whether Australian manufacturing supply chains need to change, but how quickly and how deliberately organisations choose to act.

Is your supply chain keeping pace with the reality of Australian manufacturing?

If resilience, planning confidence, or working capital still feel like trade-offs rather than deliberate choices, it may be time to take a step back and reset the foundations. At Trace Consultants, we work with manufacturers to redesign supply chains for today’s conditions. More adaptable networks. Stronger planning capability. Clear decisions that balance cost, service, resilience, and sustainability.

Get in touch with Trace to explore how your supply chain can move from reactive to resilient, and become a genuine source of competitive advantage.