Sales and operations planning (S&OP) and sales and operations execution (S&OE) are related processes in supply chain management. However, they differ in their goals, focus, and time horizon. Let’s go over the basics of each process and elaborate their differences. We’ll also discuss recent trends toward modifying, combining, or eliminating these business functions.
Sales and operations planning is a longer-term data analysis and planning process generally focused on the period from 3 to 18 months out, though some forecasts may reach out to 2 or 3 years. S&OP may be generally focused on the broader supply chain and more inclusive product categories, with the goal of achieving flawless balance between demand and supply. Since a lot of analysis and preparation are required for effective planning, S&OP meetings are typically held no more frequently than once a month.
Different organizations may add steps or make modifications to the following, but in general, S&OP involves (at a minimum):
For further details on each step of this process, see our full article on S&OP.
Sales and operations execution traditionally focuses on nearer-term analysis, plan revisions, and putting plans into action for the next 0 to 3 months. S&OE helps businesses implement the steps of the S&OP plan through monitoring and adjustments of operational activities in real time. While S&OP teams generally meet on a monthly basis, S&OE meetings are typically held weekly. In general terms, the S&OP process focuses on the entire supply chain and wider product categories, while the S&OE can be said in some cases to have a narrower focus, down to specific product SKUs or on identifiable disruptions to individual portions of the supply chain.
As with S&OP, the steps and functions involved with S&OE can vary widely depending on whom you ask. However, in general, S&OE will involve the following in some form:
Just as the S&OP process was defined in the 1980s and has had to become somewhat flexible or more inclusive in its definition over the past 40 years, some business thinkers today opine that the S&OE process should also be either redefined or replaced by more efficient strategies, or at least more inclusive, holistic business management practices. Some argue that the traditional separation of the S&OP and S&OE processes can lead to inefficiencies due to information lags and compartmentalized or siloed data or functions.
Certainly, any dogmatic adherence to practices that create or facilitate inefficiencies should be eliminated. However, a more inclusive redefinition can often suffice. For example, the S&OE step “demand review” could accurately be stated to be part of any effective “demand planning” step in S&OP. Similarly, a broad definition of the S&OP step “review & reconciliation” could technically encompass multiple S&OE steps including gap analysis, collaboration/action planning, and continuous review and improvement. These last functions should naturally be part of any effective, modernized S&OP plan anyway. Certainly the most recent, more expansive definitions of the S&OP process can and should involve these functions.
But, as discussed in our article on integrated business planning (IBP), there is a growing trend in today’s businesses toward incorporating or revising what may be considered traditional S&OP into a more holistic, “one consensus plan” IBP process. Ideally, IBP should account for every aspect and function covered by both S&OE and S&OP. However, for many business leadership teams, a comprehensive, Big Picture plan is not often achievable (and certainly not actionable) without breaking it down into specific steps, processes, and deliverables. So, until maximum streamlining of business planning is achieved, it may be more useful to think of S&OE as a defined, goal-oriented task, a necessary component of S&OP, and similarly to think of S&OP as a necessary component enabling effective IBP.