Supply chain-adviseur Stephan de Wit over de kloof in systeemeigenaarschap die investeringen van miljoenen euro's in planning verandert in dure kantoormeubels.
De meeste mislukkingen bij planningssystemen zijn terug te voeren op eigenaarschap, niet op technologie. De tools zijn capabel genoeg. Het probleem zit in de manier waarop organisaties ze positioneren, aansturen en ontwikkelen.
Planners in organisaties met gebrekkig systeembeheer besteden hun tijd aan het afstemmen van gegevens in Excel-bestanden in plaats van aan het uitvoeren van scenarioanalyses. Het planningssysteem zorgt voor extra werk in plaats van dat het dit wegneemt.
Om de kloof te dichten is het essentieel dat de organisatie eigenaarschap neemt over het systeem en dat een intern team zich continu inzet voor de doorontwikkeling ervan. Dit moet worden gezien als een structureel proces, en niet als een fase die na de livegang is afgerond.
Supply chain teams have never had more planning power at their fingertips. Dedicated tools for demand, supply, and finance planning, each one capable, each one expensive. And yet, when a real decision needs to be made, the numbers still end up in Excel. We see it over and over again: systems going unused or barely used to do what their good at. Not because the tools are weak, because something else in the organisation hasn't caught up with them...
So what is this unseen soboteur bringing down the efficiency of the systems? Our observation: it usually isn't the software.
At one organisation we helped, 95% of decisions ran through Excel in practice, while a planning platform worth millions kept running quietly alongside it. Commercial, supply, and finance each had their own module. But the moment a real call had to be made, planners pulled the numbers out and adjusted them off-system. The platform had become a place to record decisions, not make them. Could a tool that capable really be the problem? Rarely.
What's missing is a business owner with the mandate to shape it, someone who speaks both the language of the system and the language of the boardroom.
The misuse of the system isn't just a planning inconvenience, it's value quietly leaving the business.
None of this shows up on a dashboard. It shows up in the decisions that quietly never got made, and in the boardroom, decisions not made are decisions competitors get to make first.
You don't need a new platform. You need to put the one you have in the right hands.
Start with one question, and ask it honestly: who is allowed to change the system tomorrow, without calling the vendor? If the answer is nobody, you're not steering the system, you're renting it.
From there, the path is practical: a small internal team that bridges business questions and system capability, so changes take days rather than weeks. And AI is already changing what's possible here, model configurations that once took months now take days, and connections to ERP and CRM that used to be the most expensive part of any project are well within reach. Every step you take here moves your planners from reconciling numbers to owning decisions. and gives you the kind of forward-looking story that lands in the boardroom, not just the planning room.
Here you'll find the answers to some questions you might have
Most planning system failures trace back to ownership, not technology. The tools are capable. The gap opens when organisations position the system as an IT asset rather than a steering instrument owned by the business. Without a business owner and an internal team committed to continuous improvement, organisations revert to Excel within months of go-live.
Excel fills the gap between what the system can do and what the business needs to know. That gap exists because someone configured the system around process steps rather than business decisions, and because no business owner can change the system without going through the vendor first. Planners work around the system rather than through it.
A person with a business role, not IT and not the vendor, holds accountability for the system, controls the budget, and carries the mandate to develop it alongside the organisation's planning ambitions. Distributing that responsibility across IT, Finance, and Supply Chain is the primary reason ownership gaps open.
AI reduces the time and cost of building planning models. Configurations that once took months now take days. Scenario analysis moves from a separate project into the standard planning conversation, with questions answered in hours rather than weeks. Connecting planning platforms to ERP and CRM data no longer requires months of integration work. Access to AI is the baseline. The organisations that benefit are those that structure themselves to use it.
Ontdek hoe je jouw systeemflow kunt optimaliseren.
Wil je meer weten of je opties verkennen? Neem gerust contact op met Rico of plan direct een afspraak in!
rico.de.heer@quicksilverconsultancy.com
06 23 27 31 94
More articles from the field.
