Forecast error shows up on both ends — lost margin when you stock out on the movers, cash frozen in overstock on the rest. We build modern demand planning + AI forecasting that cuts both.
If you plan demand in spreadsheets, you pay every quarter — and you barely see it. Here's what replaces it.
One shared number, live data piped from your ERP and POS, scenario planning in minutes. The spreadsheet retires.
Statistical + machine-learning forecasts benchmarked against your current accuracy, by SKU — the part most planning shops can't build.
Service-level-driven, per-SKU safety stock that adjusts to demand and lead-time — cash off the shelf, fill rate up.
Last-year-plus-X in Excel, or statistical + AI, accuracy tracked by SKU?
Manual exports, or live pipelines from ERP / POS / orders?
Ad-hoc, or a real monthly process with one shared number?
None, or model promos, lead-time shifts and shocks in minutes?
Blanket safety stock, or service-level-driven and dynamic?
Score yourself in the free interactive teardown — it also estimates the cash your forecast error is costing you right now.
Start with a teardown that puts a dollar figure on your forecast error. Then we build the model + AI forecasting, run it in parallel for one cycle to prove the lift, and cut over.
Not a bigger spreadsheet. A real planning model with live data, scenario planning, and an AI-forecasting layer benchmarked SKU by SKU against your current accuracy — run in parallel for one cycle before cutover.
Spreadsheet S&OP cost us every quarter — stockouts on the sellers, dead inventory on the rest, and a forecast nobody fully trusted. Moving to a real planning model with an AI forecasting layer moved millions on a single product line.
Now it's all I do: modern demand planning for manufacturers your size — the ones drowning in spreadsheets and too small for a six-figure SI engagement.
Send me read-only access to your current plan (or a sample) and I'll do a free teardown — your actual forecast accuracy, where the cost is hiding, and what's recoverable. You keep the analysis either way.