AI Poised to Transform Supply Chain Planning, ISG Says
Supply chain challenges remain the same, but the tools for addressing them are changing. The emergence of AI will mark a turning point in how companies build intelligent, efficient supply chains. It will separate the winners from the also-rans.
The ISG Buyers Guides™ for Supply Chain Planning, a new portfolio of reports by ISG Software Research, provides the rankings and ratings of 22 software providers and their products to support supply chain planning. The research finds that AI and generative AI will have profound effects on both large and midsize enterprises, including retailers, that adopt them for supply chain planning over the next decade. Companies with even moderately long and complex supply chains must decide how and when to apply AI and GenAI to their planning processes. Selecting the right provider will be a key part of the transition.
'Supply chain challenges remain the same, but the tools for addressing them are changing,' said Robert Kugel, executive director, Business Research, ISG Software Research. 'The emergence of AI will mark a turning point in how companies build intelligent, efficient supply chains. It will separate the winners from the also-rans.'
Supply chain planning software helps enterprises maintain resilient operations in several ways, the report says. By improving the accuracy of demand forecasts, often with advanced algorithms and machine learning, it enables retailers and other companies to anticipate customer needs and improve order fulfillment. It can also identify potential risks and disruptions in the supply chain and simulate various scenarios to help companies plan for contingencies. Real-time data and insights help enterprises make informed decisions faster, and improved collaboration keeps organizations aligned across functions and geographies.
AI and GenAI have the potential to expand these benefits, substantially reducing the cost and human effort that goes into supply chain operations, ISG says. These technologies can help companies quickly juggle diverse supply and demand objectives and constraints, enabling continuous supply chain planning through even better cross-functional collaboration. Ultimately, AI advances should lead to event-driven analysis and suggestions that trigger actions, allowing enterprises to stay ahead of emerging developments.
Similarly, AI and GenAI are beginning to improve enterprise efficiency and agility through sales and operations planning software. This technology is an outgrowth of supply chain planning with a broader scope. It provides a unified approach to balancing strategic financial plans against sales, production, inventory and customer or channel lead times. As with supply chain planning, AI advancements point to the software's eventual ability to provide event-driven analysis and suggestions.
Most enterprises will integrate AI into their supply chain and sales and operations software gradually, starting with relatively low-risk initiatives, the report says. As with other AI adoption efforts, companies can start by preparing their data environments for the requirements of AI. Investments in data capture, orchestration and management lay a foundation for faster analysis and reporting.
For its 2025 Buyers Guides™ for Supply Chain Planning, ISG evaluated software providers across four platform categories — Supply Chain Planning, Midsize Supply Chain Planning, Retail Supply Chain Planning and Sales and Operations Planning — and produced a separate Buyers Guide for each. A total of 22 providers were assessed: Anaplan, Blue Ridge, Blue Yonder, Board, Dassault Systems, e2open, FuturMaster, ICRON, Infor, John Galt Solutions, Kinaxis, Logility, Manhattan Associates, o9 Solutions, OMP, Oracle, Pigment, QAD, RELEX, SAP, Slimstock and ToolsGroup.
ISG Software Research rates software providers on seven evaluation categories. Five are product-related: usability, manageability, reliability, capability and adaptability. Two are customer experience-related: validation and total cost of ownership and return on investment (TCO/ROI). Providers ranked in the top three for each evaluation category are named as Leaders. Within each platform category, those with the most Leader rankings are named as Overall Leaders.
The Overall Leaders of the 2025 Buyers Guides™ for Supply Chain Planning were the following:
Supply Chain Planning: Anaplan earned the highest overall rating, followed closely by Kinaxis and Oracle. Anaplan was designated a Leader in six categories, with Oracle and Kinaxis named as Leaders in four. In addition to those providers, Board, Dassault Systems, e2open, o9 Solutions and SAP were also rated Exemplary. Blue Yonder, Infor, John Galt Solutions, Logility, Manhattan Associates, OMP and RELEX were rated Innovative.
Midsize Supply Chain Planning: Infor was the highest-rated provider, followed by OMP and e2open. Infor was designated a Leader in five categories, e2open in three, and OMP in two. In addition to the top three providers, John Galt Solutions, Logility and Pigment were rated Exemplary. ToolsGroup was rated Innovative.
Retail Supply Chain Planning: Anaplan was the highest-rated provider, followed by Oracle and SAP. Anaplan was designated a Leader in six categories, Oracle in five categories and SAP in two. In addition to those providers, Board, e2open and o9 Solutions were rated Exemplary. Blue Yonder, Infor, John Galt Solutions, Logility, Manhattan Associates and RELEX were rated Innovative.
Sales and Operations Planning: Anaplan achieved the highest overall rating, followed closely by Kinaxis and Oracle. Anaplan was designated a Leader in six categories, while Oracle and Kinaxis were named Leaders in four categories each. In addition to those providers, Board, Dassault Systems, e2open, o9 Solutions, Pigment and SAP also were rated Exemplary. Blue Yonder, Infor, John Galt Solutions, Logility, Manhattan Associates, OMP and RELEX were rated Innovative.
'To craft effective strategies for meeting their emerging supply chain needs, enterprises need detailed evaluations of software providers that compare the strengths of their products,' said Mark Smith, partner and chief software analyst, ISG Software Research. 'ISG research and expertise in supply chain and sales and operations planning software gives organizations insights to make sound decisions about how to move forward.'
The ISG Buyers Guides™ for Supply Chain Planning are the distillation of more than a year of market and product research efforts. The research is not sponsored nor influenced by software providers and is conducted solely to help enterprises optimize their business and IT software investments.
Visit this webpage to learn more about the ISG Buyers Guides™ for Supply Chain Planning and read executive summaries of each of the four reports. The complete reports, including provider rankings across seven product and customer experience dimensions and detailed research findings on each provider, are available by contacting ISG Software Research.
About ISG Software Research
ISG Software Research provides authoritative coverage and analysis of the business and IT software industry. It distributes research and insights daily through its user community, and provides a portfolio of consulting, advisory, research and education services for enterprises, software and service providers, and investment firms. Its ISG Buyers Guides™ help enterprises evaluate and select software providers through tailored assessments powered by ISG's proprietary methodology. Visit research.isg-one.com for more information and to sign up for free community membership.
About ISG
ISG (Nasdaq: III) is a global AI-centered technology research and advisory firm. A trusted partner to more than 900 clients, including 75 of the world's top 100 enterprises, ISG is a long-time leader in technology and business services that is now at the forefront of leveraging AI to help organizations achieve operational excellence and faster growth. The firm, founded in 2006, is known for its proprietary market data, in-depth knowledge of provider ecosystems, and the expertise of its 1,600 professionals worldwide working together to help clients maximize the value of their technology investments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
21 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How AI Adoption Is Sitting With Workers
T here's a danger to focusing primarily on CEO statements about AI adoption in the workplace, warns Brian Merchant, a journalist-in-residence at the AI Now Institute, an AI policy and research institute. 'There's a wide gulf between the prognostications of tech company CEOs and what's actually happening on the ground,' he says. Merchant in 2023 published Blood in the Machine, a book about how the historical Luddites resisted automation during the industrial revolution. In his substack newsletter by the same name, Merchant has written about how AI implementation is now reshaping work. To better understand workers' perspectives on how AI is changing jobs, we spoke with Merchant. Here are excerpts from our conversation, edited for length and clarity: There have been a lot of headlines recently about how AI adoption has led to headcount reductions. How do you define the AI jobs crisis? There is a real crisis in work right now, and AI poses a distinct kind of threat. But that threat to me, based on my understanding of technological trends in history, is less that we're looking at a widespread, mass-automation, job-wipe-out event and more at a particular set of logics that generative AI gives management and employers. There are jobs that are uniquely vulnerable. They might not be immense in number, but they're jobs that people think are pretty important—writing and artistic creation and that kind of thing. So you do have those jobs being threatened, but then we also have this crisis where AI supplies managers and bosses with this imperative where, whether or not the AI can replace somebody, it's still being pushed as a justification for doing so. We saw this a lot with DOGE and the hollowing out of the public workforce and the AI-first strategies that were touted over there. More often than facilitating outright job replacement, automation is used by bosses to break down tasks, deskill labor, or use as leverage against workers. This was true in the Luddites' time, and it's true right now. A lot of the companies that say they're 'AI-first' are merely taking the opportunity to reduce salaried headcount and replace it with cheaper, more precarious contract labor. This is what happened with Klarna, the fintech company that has famously been one of the most vocal advocates of AI anywhere. [Editor's note: In May, Klarna CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski told Bloomberg that the company was reversing its well-publicized move to replace 700 human call-center workers with AI and instead hiring humans again. 'As cost unfortunately seems to have been a too predominant evaluation factor when organizing this, what you end up having is lower quality,' Siemiatkowski said.] After all, firms still need people to ensure the AI output is up to par, edit it, or to 'duct tape it' to make sure it works well enough with existing systems—bosses just figure they can take the opportunity to call that 'unskilled' work and pay the people who are doing it less. Your project, 'AI Killed My Job,' is an ongoing, multi-part series that dives deeper into how the AI jobs crisis is impacting workers day-to-day. What themes or patterns are emerging from those stories? I invited workers who have been impacted by AI to reach out and share their stories. The project has just begun, and I've already gotten hundreds of responses at this point. I expected to see AI being used as a tool by management to try to extract more labor and more value from people, to get people to work harder, and to have it kind of deteriorate conditions rather than replace work outright. That's been born out, and that's what I've seen. The first installment that I ran was around tech workers. Some people have the assumption that the tech industry is a little bit more homogeneous in its enthusiasm for AI, but that's really not the case. A lot of the workers who have to deal with them are not happy with AI and the way that AI is being used in their companies and the impact it's having on their work. There's a few people [included in the first installment] who have lost their jobs as part of layoffs initiated by a company that has an AI-first strategy, including at CrowdStrike and Dropbox, and I'm hearing from many people who haven't quite lost their jobs yet, but are exponentially concerned that they will. But, by and large, what you're seeing now is managers using AI to justify speeding up work, trying to get employees to use it to be more productive at the expense of quality or the things that people used to enjoy about their jobs. There are people who are frustrated to see management really encouraging the use of more AI at the expense of security or product quality. There's a story from a Google worker who watched colleagues feed AI-generated code into key infrastructures, which was pretty unsettling to many. That such an important and powerful company that runs such crucial web infrastructure would allow AI-generated code to be used in their systems with relatively few safeguards was really surprising. [Editor's note: A Google spokesperson said that the company actively encourages AI use internally, with roughly 30% of the company's code now being AI generated. They cited CEO Sundar Pichai's estimate that AI has increased engineering velocity by 10% but said that engineers have rigorous code review, security, and maintenance standards.] We're also seeing it being used to displace accountability, with managers using AI as a way to deflect blame should something go wrong, or, 'It's not my fault; it's AI's fault.' Your book, Blood in the Machine, tells the story of the historical Luddites' uprising against rising automation during the industrial revolution. What can we learn from that era that's still relevant today? One lesson we can learn from the Luddites is that we should be seeking ways to make more people and stakeholders involved in the process of developing and deploying technology. The Luddites were not anti-technology. They rose up and they smashed the machine because they had no other choice. The deck was stacked against them, and a lot of them were quite literally starving. Collective bargaining was illegal for them. And, just like today, conditions were increasingly difficult as the democratic levers that people can pull to demand a seat at the table were vanishingly few. (I mean, Silicon Valley just teamed up with the GOP to try and get an outright 10-year ban passed on states' abilities to regulate AI). That leads to strife, it leads to anger, it leads to feeling like you don't have a say or any options. Now, we're looking at artists and writers and content creators and coders and you name it, watching their livelihoods becoming more precarious with worsening conditions, if not getting erased outright. As you squeeze these more and more populations of people, then it's not unthinkable that you would see what happened then happen again in some capacity. You're already seeing the roots of that with people vandalizing Waymo cars, which they see as the agents of big tech and automation. That's a reason employers might want to consider that human element rather than putting the pedal to the metal with regards to AI automation because there's a lot of fear, anxiety, and anger at the way that all of this has taken shape and it's playing out. What should employers do instead? When it comes to employers, at the end of the day, if you're shelling out for a bunch of AI, then you're either hoping that your employees will use it to be more productive for you and work harder for you, or you're hoping to get rid of employees. Ideally, the employer would say it's the former. It would trust its employees to know how best to generate more value and make them more productive. In reality, even if a company goes that far, they can still turn around and trim labor costs elsewhere and mandate workers to use AI to pick up laid-off colleagues' workloads and ratchet up productivity. So what you really need is a union contract or something codified in law that you can't just fire people and replace them with AI. You see some union contracts that include language about the ways that AI or automation can be implemented and when it can't, and what the worker has say over. Right now, that is the best means of giving people power over a technology that's going to affect their working life. The problem with that is we have such low union density in the United States that it limits who can enjoy such a benefit to those who are sort of formally organized. There are also attempts at legislation that put checks on what automation can and can't touch, when AI can be used in the hiring process or what kinds of data it can collect. Overall, there has to be a serious check on the power of Silicon Valley before we can hope to get workers' voices heard in terms of how the technology's affecting them.
Wall Street Journal
30 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
AI's Overlooked $97 Billion Contribution to the Economy
The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 3% in the second quarter, which is great news. Does that mean artificial intelligence is delivering on its long-promised benefits? No, because gross domestic product isn't the best place to look for AI's contribution. Yet the official government numbers substantially underestimate the benefits of AI. First-quarter 2025 GDP was down an annualized 0.5%. Labor productivity growth ticked up a respectable but hardly transformative 2.3% in 2024, following a few lean years of gains and losses. Is AI overhyped?
Business Wire
31 minutes ago
- Business Wire
LINE Investors Have Opportunity to Lead Lineage, Inc. Securities Fraud Lawsuit with the Schall Law Firm
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Lineage, Inc. ('Lineage' or 'the Company') (NASDAQ: LINE) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Offering Documents issued in connection with its initial public offering ('IPO') conducted in July 2024, are encouraged to contact the firm before September 30, 2025. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at or by email at bschall@ The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Lineage suffered a weakening of demand as customers destocked excessive inventory and adjusted their businesses to changing consumer trends. The Company raised prices leading up to the IPO in an unsustainable manner. The Company failed to counteract its demand problems through marketing or its supposed competitive advantages. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Lineage, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
