7 Supply Chain Optimisation Solutions

Inventory, production, warehouse, transport, procurement, risk, and S&OP — each with dedicated ML models, problem-solution flows, case studies, and quantified ROI.

📦 Inventory
🏭 Production
🏢 Warehouse
🚚 Transport
🛒 Procurement
⚠️ Risk
📋 S&OP
OptimisationInventory

Inventory Optimisation

Static safety stock formulas assume normal distribution and constant parameters. Reality is different — demand is lumpy, lead times vary, risk profiles differ by SKU. Our simulation-based and Bayesian methods calculate the exact buffer needed at any service level, freeing trapped working capital while preventing stockouts.

Get Free Assessment →See Product
SAFETY STOCK — CURRENT vs OPTIMALCat ACat BCat CCat DCurrent (over-buffered)Optimal (98.5% SL)
28%
Safety Stock Reduction
$3.2M
Working Capital Freed
98.5%
Service Level Maintained
47
Hidden Risk SKUs Found
Problems We Solve → How We Solve Them
Millions locked in excess inventory — DOS at 60+ days when optimal is 35. CFO asks "why so much stock?" — planning has no data-backed answer.
Same safety stock formula for all SKUs — regardless of demand variability, lead time uncertainty, or supplier risk. Category A is over-buffered; Category C is exposed.
Stockouts despite high inventory — wrong SKUs are buffered. 47 at-risk items that traditional ABC analysis completely misses.
Monte Carlo simulation models actual demand and lead time distributions — not normal assumptions. Computes exact buffer at 95/98/99% service level per SKU.
Dynamic safety stock recalculated weekly using real demand CV, lead time variability, and forecast error. Different policies for different risk profiles.
Bayesian stockout probability identifies the SKUs that traditional methods miss — targeted buffering based on conditional probability of stockout given observed causes.
Case Study

Auto Parts Manufacturer — 2,200 SKUs

Carrying $10.3M inventory with 93% fill rate. Frequent stockouts on C-parts despite excess A-stock. Mathnal deployed simulation-based SS with Bayesian risk scoring. Safety stock reduced 31% ($3.2M freed), fill rate improved to 98.5%, and 47 hidden at-risk SKUs identified.

31%
SS Reduced
93→98.5%
Fill Rate
$3.2M
Capital Freed

How much working capital is trapped in your inventory?

Free assessment — we'll quantify your savings potential to the dollar.

Request Free Assessment →
PlanningScheduling

Production Planning & Scheduling

MRP logic ignores real-time capacity constraints, changeover dependencies, and yield variability. Our constraint-based scheduling considers machine availability, changeover matrices, yield predictions, and demand priority simultaneously — producing executable plans, not theoretical ones.

Talk to Us →
PRODUCTION — PLAN ADHERENCE IMPROVEMENTPlan AdherenceBefore: 81%After: 94% (+13pp)Changeover TimeBefore: 45 min avgAfter: 35 min (-22%)OEEBefore: 72%After: 85% (+18%)
94%
Plan Adherence
22%
Changeover Reduced
+18%
OEE Improvement
35%
Overtime Reduced
Problems → Solutions
Schedule breaks daily — unplanned changeovers, material shortages, and machine breakdowns make the production plan obsolete by Tuesday.
Excessive changeover time — sequences are planned by experience, not by mathematical optimisation. Average 45 mins between product switches.
Reactive maintenance — equipment fails unexpectedly, causing 3–8 hours of unplanned downtime per week across the plant.
Constraint programming (CP-SAT) generates feasible schedules that respect machine availability, material readiness, and labour shifts simultaneously.
Changeover matrix optimisation sequences products to minimise total switch time. Campaigns are grouped by setup similarity — reducing changeover 22%.
Predictive maintenance (XGBoost) forecasts equipment failures 48–72 hours ahead using vibration, temperature, and cycle count sensor data.
Case Study

Process Manufacturer — 3 Production Lines

Plan adherence was 81%, changeover averaging 45 minutes, OEE at 72%. Mathnal deployed CP-SAT scheduling with changeover matrix and predictive maintenance. Adherence improved to 94%, changeover dropped to 35 minutes, OEE reached 85%. Overtime reduced 35%.

81→94%
Adherence
-22%
Changeover
85%
OEE

Is your production plan executable — or just theoretical?

We'll assess your scheduling and identify the top 3 improvement levers.

Request Assessment →
LogisticsWarehouse

Warehouse Optimisation

Fast-movers stored far from pick zones. Inefficient pick paths. Manual quality inspection. Reactive labour scheduling. We fix all of it — using ML-driven slotting, computer vision, and demand-based workforce planning that transforms warehouse throughput.

Talk to Us →
WAREHOUSE KPI DASHBOARDPICK RATE+25%INV ACCURACY99.2%UTILISATION86%LABOUR COST REDUCTION-30% labour cost through demand-based schedulingDock SchedulingWait time -45%Quality Check (CV)Defect detection 99.1%
25%
Pick Rate Improvement
99.2%
Inventory Accuracy
30%
Labour Cost Reduced
45%
Dock Wait Time Cut
Problems → Solutions
Poor slotting — fast-moving SKUs stored in far aisles. Pickers walk 8–12 km/day unnecessarily. Pick rate stuck at 120 lines/hour.
Manual quality inspection — human visual checks miss 3–5% defects. Inconsistent standards across shifts. No traceability.
Reactive labour scheduling — yesterday's headcount used for today's orders. Peak days understaffed, quiet days overstaffed.
ML-driven slotting places SKUs based on velocity, co-occurrence, weight, and dimensions. Pick paths optimised using TSP algorithms. Pick rate improves 25%.
Computer vision (YOLO/CNN) automates quality inspection at line speed. 99.1% defect detection rate with full image traceability for audits.
Demand-based labour forecasting predicts order volumes 7 days ahead. Shifts scheduled to match workload — reducing labour cost 30%.
Case Study

3PL Warehouse — 18,000 SKUs, 45 staff

Pick rate was 120 lines/hour, inventory accuracy 96.4%, and dock wait times averaging 90 minutes. Mathnal deployed slotting optimisation, CV quality checks, and demand-based labour scheduling. Pick rate improved to 150 lines/hour, accuracy reached 99.2%, dock wait dropped to 50 minutes, and labour costs reduced 30%.

120→150
Lines/Hour
99.2%
Accuracy
-30%
Labour Cost

Your warehouse is walking too far and checking too slowly.

Free slotting analysis — we'll show you exactly where the efficiency is hiding.

Request Warehouse Audit →
RoutingLogistics

Transport Routing Optimisation

Dispatchers plan routes by experience — resulting in suboptimal stop sequences, 60–70% vehicle utilisation, excess fuel, and missed delivery windows. Our VRP algorithms generate mathematically optimal routes in minutes, handling time windows, capacity constraints, and multi-depot scenarios.

Get Route Analysis →See Product
TRANSPORT — COST & UTILISATION IMPACTMonthly Freight CostBefore: $74,200/moAfter: $65,300 (-12%)Vehicle UtilisationBefore: 68%After: 87% (+19pp)On-Time DeliveryBefore: 89%After: 96% (+7pp)
12%
Cost Reduction
87%
Vehicle Utilisation
96%
On-Time Delivery
$890K
Annual Savings
Problems → Solutions
Manual route planning — dispatchers use experience and local knowledge. Suboptimal sequences, backtracking, and unnecessary distance.
Trucks running 60–70% loaded — no consolidation logic. Small orders sent on full trucks. High cost per unit shipped.
Missed delivery windows — poor sequencing causes late arrivals. Customer penalties (3% of COGS at major retailers) applied.
VRP with time windows (OR-Tools) generates optimal multi-stop routes in minutes. Considers vehicle capacity, driver hours, and depot locations.
Load consolidation algorithms maximise vehicle fill rate. Orders combined by geography, priority, and compatibility. Utilisation jumps to 87%.
Time-window-aware sequencing ensures critical customers are served first. Dynamic re-routing handles same-day exceptions.
Case Study

FMCG National Distribution — 8 DCs, 2,400 Delivery Points

Manual routing across 8 DCs serving 2,400 points. Freight cost $74K/month, vehicle utilisation 68%, on-time delivery 89%. Mathnal deployed VRPTW optimisation. Cost reduced 12% ($890K/year), utilisation hit 87%, on-time improved to 96%.

$890K
Annual Savings
68→87%
Utilisation
96%
On-Time Rate

How much are inefficient routes costing you?

Upload your delivery data — free route optimisation analysis in 48 hours.

Get Free Route Analysis →
AnalyticsProcurement

Procurement Optimisation

Spend is fragmented across categories with no visibility. Supplier selection is relationship-driven, not data-driven. Contract compliance is tracked manually. We deploy NLP for spend classification, ML for supplier scoring, and LP for optimal allocation — revealing savings invisible to manual analysis.

Request Spend Analysis →
PROCUREMENT — SPEND ANALYSIS$42MTotal SpendRaw Materials (35%)Packaging (25%)Logistics (20%)MRO & Indirect (15%)SAVINGS IDENTIFIED15%
15%
Spend Savings
40%
Supplier Consolidation
14 days
Faster Risk Warning
3x
Audit Speed
Problems → Solutions
Fragmented spend data — same materials purchased under different PO descriptions, codes, and suppliers. No single view of total category spend.
Supplier selection by relationships — no objective scoring across quality, delivery, cost, and risk. Incumbents favoured even when underperforming.
No TCO visibility — purchase price is 40–60% of true cost. Freight, quality failures, expediting, and risk costs are invisible.
NLP-based spend classification automatically categorises PO data into clean taxonomies — revealing consolidation opportunities across 40% of fragmented suppliers.
ML supplier scorecards combine financial health, delivery OTD, quality PPM, risk exposure, and compliance into a weighted composite score updated monthly.
Total Cost of Ownership models quantify the true cost: price + freight + quality + risk + administration. LP allocation optimises supplier mix to minimise TCO.
Case Study

Manufacturing Company — $42M Annual Spend

Spend fragmented across 380 suppliers with no category taxonomy. Mathnal deployed NLP classification, supplier scoring, and TCO modelling. Identified 15% savings ($6.3M), consolidated 40% of supplier base, and reduced sourcing cycle from 12 weeks to 4 weeks.

$6.3M
Savings Found
380→228
Suppliers
12→4 wks
Sourcing Cycle

Where is your spend leaking?

Free spend cube analysis — we'll classify your PO data and show savings in 5 business days.

Request Spend Analysis →
IntelligenceRisk

Supply Chain Risk Monitoring

Supplier disruptions are discovered only after they hit. Single-source dependencies go unmonitored. Risk assessments happen annually, if at all. We deploy continuous ML-based risk scoring across financial, geopolitical, climate, and quality dimensions — detecting disruptions 14 days before impact.

Request Risk Assessment →See Product
SUPPLIER RISK HEATMAPFinancialGeopoliticalClimateQualitySup ASup BSup CSup DLowMedLowLowHIGHHIGHMedMedMedLowHIGHLowLowLowLowMedALERT: Supplier B — Financial + Geopolitical risk elevated. Activate contingency.
14 days
Earlier Warning
73%
Disruptions Anticipated
$1.8M
Avg Loss Prevented
340
Suppliers Monitored
Problems → Solutions
Single-source dependency — one failure = production shutdown. No visibility into supplier financial health until it is too late.
Disruptions discovered after impact — supplier misses delivery, production stops, customers impacted, revenue lost. Reactive, not proactive.
Risk assessed annually — a spreadsheet updated once a year. By the time it is refreshed, the landscape has changed completely.
Multi-dimensional risk heatmap scores every supplier across financial, geopolitical, climate, and quality dimensions. Updated daily. Single-source risks flagged automatically.
14-day early warning using financial signals (credit score changes, payment behaviour), news monitoring (NLP), and delivery trend analysis. Act before the disruption hits.
Continuous automated scoring across 12 risk dimensions. Monthly reports replaced by real-time monitoring. Scenario simulation for "what if supplier X fails?"
Case Study

Chemical Manufacturer — Critical Single-Source Supplier

Single-source supplier for a key raw material showed no visible problems. Mathnal's risk monitor detected financial distress signals (payment delays to their sub-suppliers, credit downgrade) 14 days before a delivery failure. Alternative supplier activated in 72 hours. Prevented $1.8M in production downtime. Now monitors 340 suppliers across 12 dimensions.

14 days
Early Warning
$1.8M
Loss Prevented
340
Suppliers Tracked

Know your supplier risks before they become your crisis.

Free risk assessment of your top 20 suppliers — scores delivered in 5 business days.

Request Risk Assessment →
PlanningS&OP

S&OP Analytics & Planning

Most S&OP processes generate slides, not decisions. Sales says one thing, operations plans another, finance budgets a third. We redesign S&OP from scratch — structured monthly cadence, AI-driven scenario planning, consensus forecasting with FVA, and a single dashboard connecting demand, supply, and financial planning.

Request S&OP Assessment →
S&OP MONTHLY CADENCEWeek 1Demand ReviewStatistical + Market intelWeek 2Supply ReviewCapacity + MaterialsWeek 3Pre-S&OPGap analysisWeek 4Exec S&OPDecisionsAI-POWERED SCENARIO PLANNINGBest CaseBase CaseDisruption CaseAd-Hoc DecisionsReduced 70%OTIF Improvement88% → 94% (+6pp)
15%
Forecast Accuracy Up
6pp
OTIF Improvement
30%
Planning Time Saved
-70%
Ad-Hoc Decisions
Problems → Solutions
Siloed planning — sales plans demand independently, operations plans supply independently, finance budgets independently. No single version of truth.
No scenario planning — when a tariff changes or a supplier fails, there is no pre-built scenario to activate. Every disruption is handled ad-hoc.
Forecast overrides without accountability — sales adjusts the statistical forecast by "gut feel." 60–70% of these overrides make accuracy worse (FVA negative).
Structured 4-week S&OP cadence — demand review, supply review, pre-S&OP alignment, executive decisions. One process, one number, one plan across all functions.
AI scenario simulation — best case, base case, disruption case pre-modelled with probability weights. When a shock hits, the response plan is already ready.
FVA (Forecast Value Added) analysis measures whether each process step improves or degrades accuracy. Overrides that destroy value are flagged and eliminated with data.
Case Study

Industrial Manufacturer — 3 Sites

S&OP was a monthly slide deck with no structured cadence. Sales, ops, and finance operated on different numbers. Mathnal implemented 4-week S&OP with FVA, scenario planning, and a consensus dashboard. Forecast accuracy improved 15%, OTIF rose from 88% to 94%, and ad-hoc decision-making dropped 70% within two quarters.

88→94%
OTIF
-70%
Ad-Hoc Decisions
2 quarters
Time to Value

Is your S&OP driving decisions — or just generating slides?

Free S&OP maturity assessment with a roadmap to structured planning.

Request S&OP Assessment →