By Chris Gaffney, Managing Director of the Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute, Supply Chain Advisor, and former executive at Frito‑Lay, AJC International, and Coca‑Cola.

In this issue:

• The real blind spot in analytics teams
• Three failures where the model was “right” and the decision was wrong
• A five-question checklist to run before anything goes to leadership.

A Subtle but Growing Concern

Over the past several months, I have had conversations with senior leaders at several large, well-established supply chain organizations with strong teams responsible for Integrated Business Planning (IBP) and supply chain network design and optimization.

These teams are technically strong. They know how to build models. They are comfortable with large data sets. Many are now incorporating AI tools into their workflows.

But the same concern keeps surfacing across those conversations:

The analytical capability is improving—but the decision-making discipline around it is not keeping pace.

Analysts move quickly to building models without fully defining the business problem. Assumptions are not always surfaced or challenged. Outputs are evaluated mathematically, not operationally. And recommendations are not always translated into real-world implications.

Leaders are concerned about this and are looking for ways to address. I share their concern because I have been in their shoes.

What the Experience Taught Us

Earlier in my career, across different roles at Coca-Cola, we did not formally teach critical thinking. We learned it through experience and often through mistakes. Three situations shaped how I think about this today.

Powerade: When the Model Works but the Thinking Doesn’t

While working with optimization groups at Coca-Cola North America, we overbuilt capacity for Powerade. The model did exactly what it was supposed to do. The problem was upstream of the model.

We took the demand forecast at face value. At the time, we deferred to the brand teams without interrogating their assumptions. We never asked what was driving the projected volume—whether the competitive dynamics supported it, whether the channel assumptions were realistic, whether pricing and distribution plans were grounded, whether overall market growth would materialize as projected.

The consequence was idle capacity, production lines that were purchased and never installed, write-offs, and a fundamental change to our process. Going forward, brand and supply chain teams were both required to sign off on future business cases. The model was technically correct. The thinking around the model had not been.

Little Rock: When Feasibility Isn’t Reality

Later, within Coca-Cola Supply, we made a network decision to close a plant in Little Rock. On paper, the remaining system had the capacity to absorb the volume. The model said so.

What the model assessed was production capacity based on rated line speeds. What it did not account for was dock and storage capacity at peak, or the practical limitations of standing up a new shift at the receiving plants. Those constraints were real. They were also invisible in the model.

In the short term, we had to source sub optimally from other plants—which directly undermined the business case we had built to justify the closure. The math was right. The operational validation was incomplete.

Mini Cans: When the Thinking Matches the Model

By the time I led the National Product Support Group, we had evolved. Decisions like the launch of mini cans required cross-functional alignment, scenario-based thinking, and a clear understanding of how demand would actually be generated across channels and routes to market.

We got that one right, not because the model was more sophisticated, but because the discipline around the model was stronger. We had learned, the hard way, to ask the questions the model could not ask for itself.

Most of the Work Is Outside the Model

There is a line I first heard from Chris Janke: "Most of the work is outside the model." He may have learned it from someone else; I don’t know the original source, but it is the framing that has stayed with me. With the advances in data and machine learning we have seen over the past decade, that proportion may be closer to 75 percent today.

We are better than ever at collecting and cleansing large data sets, processing high volumes of information, and identifying mathematical errors. But the most important work still happens outside the model: defining the right business question, building meaningful scenarios, interpreting outputs in real-world terms, and stress-testing the assumptions that drive the recommendation.

Janke captured this precisely in documenting his own experience with a modeling error that illustrated the point. An analyst had validated the math on a labor cost model—everything checked out numerically. But when the output was translated into real-world terms, it implied production workers earning roughly $300,000 per year while working approximately 60 hours total annually. The math was internally consistent. The result was operationally impossible. The question that should have been asked early: does this make sense in the context of how the business actually operates? It was not asked until after the analysis was complete.

The discipline to ask that question is not modeling skill. It is a critical thinking skill.

Where the Breakdown Happens

Before the Model: Skipping the Hard Questions

A common pattern today is that analysts move quickly to building the model. The harder and more important step of defining the business decision before the model is built gets compressed or skipped entirely. The questions that require that step are not complicated, but they take time and engagement to answer well:

• What business decision are we actually trying to make?
• What scenarios matter, and why?
• What does success look like—not mathematically, but operationally?
• What constraints are real versus assumed?

These questions are not as clean as coding a model. They require conversations with people who understand the constraints, not just the data. That is part of why they get skipped.

After the Model: Mistaking Mathematical Accuracy for Business Validity

This is where more serious errors occur. Model issues can usually be fixed with more time. Misinterpretation of output leads to bad decisions that are much harder to unwind.

The Powerade and Little Rock situations both illustrate this. In each case, the model was not wrong in any technical sense. What was missing was the translation layer— where someone asks, “what changes on a Tuesday night shift, at Plant B, when demand spikes 12 percent?”

That translation layer does not happen automatically. It has to be built into how teams work. And it is exactly the discipline that gets squeezed when organizations reward speed and analytical sophistication above everything else.

What Critical Thinking Actually Means in Supply Chain

Critical thinking in supply chain is not skepticism for its own sake, and it is not a soft skill that sits alongside the analytical work. It is a discipline applied to decisions and not just to models. The word itself points to what we mean: kritikos, the Greek root, means skilled in judging, able to discern*. That is the right definition for our purposes.

It means asking whether the right question is being answered before investing in answering it well. It means making the assumptions that drive a recommendation visible and testable. It means translating analytical output into operational consequence: what actually changes, for whom, at what cost, and under what conditions the answer flips.

That discipline shows up or breaks down at four specific moments:

1. Before the model is built:  Is the business question defined precisely enough to model?
2. While the model is running:  Are the assumptions embedded in the data realistic and challenged?
3. When the output is ready:  Does this result make sense in how the business actually operates?
4. Before the recommendation goes forward:  Have we planned for how this will be received, and by whom?

When these moments are skipped because of time pressure, overconfidence in tools, or a culture that rewards analytical speed over decision rigor the gap between analysis and action grows. The Powerade and Little Rock situations were both failures at these moments, not failures of the models themselves.

*DeCesare, M. (2009). Casting a critical glance at teaching “critical thinking.” Pedagogy and the Human Sciences, 1(1), 73–77.

A Five-Question Diagnostic

Before an analysis or recommendation moves forward, teams should be able to answer five questions clearly. If any of them cannot be answered, the analysis is not ready—regardless of how strong the model is.

Figure 1: A Five-Question Diagnostic (accessible version)

These are  questions that should have specific, grounded answers before a recommendation reaches leadership. If the team cannot answer question two (what assumption would flip the result) then the recommendation rests on unexamined ground. If question four cannot be answered, the change management work has not started yet.

In the Powerade situation, questions one and two were the misses. In Little Rock, it was question three. The models were not the problem. The diagnostic would have surfaced both gaps before the decisions were made.

This Gap Is Well Documented

What I am describing from my own experience is consistent with what the research shows.

A long-running finding in operations research is that many models are built and comparatively few actually drive decisions, and the breakdown is organizational, not technical. A widely cited review in the European Journal of Operational Research frames this as an implementation problem rooted in how models are connected (or not connected) to the people and processes that own the decision. 

Professional credentialing bodies have recognized the same gap. The INFORMS Certified Analytics Professional blueprint explicitly lists business problem framing, stakeholder analysis, and business case development as core analytics competencies—not optional additions. The signal is clear: being analytically strong is necessary but not sufficient.

On the training side, a field study published in the European Journal of Operational Research tested the effects of structured decision training across roughly 1,000 decision makers and analysts. The results showed measurable improvement in proactive decision-making skills and decision satisfaction. The gap is real, and it is addressable. It is a training and design issue, not a talent issue.

The 4 C’s: A Decision-Focused Framework

At Georgia Tech SCL, we organize this thinking around what we call the 4 C’s. These soft skills play a key role in the decision process. Each one asks a specific question about whether the decision, not just the analysis, was made well.

Figure 2: The 4 C’s: A Decision-Focused Framework (accessible version)

Notice what this framework does not include: model accuracy, data quality, or visualization quality. Those matter, and they are inputs to the decision. But a team can have a perfect model, a clean dataset, and a compelling dashboard and still fail all four of these tests.

The Powerade situation failed the Collaboration test The supply chain team did not sufficiently interrogate the brand team’s assumptions. Little Rock failed the Critical Thinking test: the right question was not asked about what the model was not capturing. In both cases, the Communication and Change Management failures followed directly from those upstream gaps.

When all four are present, analysis becomes a decision. When one or more is missing, the analysis and translation to a solid recommendation are at risk.

Where to Start

This topic keeps coming up in conversations with companies, in work with practitioners, and in what we hear from students as they move into industry roles.

The tools are not the problem. AI-assisted analytics, optimization models, and advanced forecasting are real assets. But tools amplify the thinking behind them. Weak decision discipline and better tools is a faster path to the wrong answer.

If this shows up in your org, try the five-question diagnostic on your next recommendation before it hits leadership. If it surfaces gaps you cannot close quickly, SCL can help. We are building workshops and courseware on decision-focused critical thinking, and we will cover this in our June Lunch and Learn.

Questions or comments? Reach out to SCL.

A new study conducted by researchers with the Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute shows that the Port of Savannah is the most cost-effective and reliable gateway for cargo destined for Atlanta, Memphis, and Nashville. According to the research, shippers can save more than $1,000 per container by routing freight through Savannah instead of West Coast ports, when evaluating full end-to-end supply chain costs and transit reliability.

The study emphasizes that gateway decisions should not be based solely on ocean rates or sailing time. While trans-Pacific routes to the West Coast are shorter at sea, researchers found that congestion, cargo rehandling, and inland transportation complexity often introduce delays and variability. In contrast, Savannah's efficient port operations, on-terminal rail service, and direct interstate access help offset longer ocean voyages with faster inland movement and greater predictability.

Researchers analyzed vessel and inland transportation data from ten Asian ports to the three Southeastern markets. Their findings showed that Savannah's reliable port processing and inland logistics significantly reduce congestion exposure and transit variability, making it a more dependable gateway for shippers seeking consistent delivery performance.

The study was conducted by Georgia Tech faculty and PhD students at the Institute's Physical Internet Center and reinforces previous Atlanta-focused research demonstrating similar benefits of East Coast routing. The findings support the growing role of the Port of Savannah as a strategic gateway for U.S. supply chains serving inland Southeast markets.

Read the original press release from the Georgia Ports Authority here:
Georgia Tech research shows East Coast gateway best choice for Atlanta, Memphis and Nashville
 

Chris Gaffney, Managing Director of the Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute (SCL), was featured in a recent Atlanta News First segment examining how a potential conflict involving Iran could impact fuel prices and broader transportation costs.

Drawing on his expertise in supply chain economics and transportation systems, Gaffney discussed how disruptions in global energy markets can ripple through logistics networks, ultimately affecting consumers and businesses across Georgia and the Southeast.

Read the full Atlanta News First article and watch the related video: Experts Warn War With Iran Could Raise Costs, Georgia Fuel Prices Leading the Way

By Chris Gaffney, Managing Director of the Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute, Supply Chain Advisor, and former executive at Frito‑Lay, AJC International, and Coca‑Cola

We recently wrapped our semi‑annual industry advisory board meeting, where a core element of the agenda is a set of "hot topics" sourced in advance from our member companies, curated, and facilitated to reflect what is most top of mind in the field. This cycle, one of those topics focused on the impact of AI on supply chain technology investment.

What began as a discussion on technology quickly surfaced a broader issue:

AI is not just changing supply chains—it is raising the standard for execution, and in doing so, redefining what it takes to sustain a brand.

When Capability Becomes Cheap

Within that discussion, a simple example sparked debate. Most of us would trust a platform like DocuSign without hesitation. It has earned that trust through reliability, security, and consistent performance.

But what if a new entrant—call it “FredSign”—offered similar functionality, powered by AI, at lower cost and with comparable features? Would you use it?

The room split. Some argued that established brands are durable because of the trust they have built over time. Others pushed back, suggesting that AI‑enabled challengers could close that gap faster than expected, making brand less relevant.

The discussion quickly moved beyond software to a broader question:

In a world where AI lowers the cost of building capability, does trust shift from brand to performance—or does brand become even more important?

Brand as a Promise

From a supply chain perspective, this is no longer theoretical. It is already happening.

At its core, a brand is a promise. For product companies, that promise is built on quality, consistency, and the experience of using the product over time. For supply chain technology and service providers, it is grounded in reliability, security, and confidence in execution.

Historically, brand has been reinforced by performance—but also protected by time, scale, and familiarity.

AI is changing that balance.

Lower Barriers, Higher Expectations

On one hand, AI lowers barriers to entry. New entrants can replicate functionality faster, improve user experiences, and target specific gaps in incumbent offerings.

In supply chain technology, this is particularly relevant. Many organizations have made significant, long‑term investments in systems that have not always delivered as expected. That creates an opening for AI‑enabled providers to enter through narrow use cases, solve specific problems better, and establish a foothold. Over time, they build credibility.

But there is a second dimension that is more immediate—and more consequential.

AI Raises the Execution Standard

One way to frame this is simple: data is a terrible thing to waste.

For years, supply chains have generated vast amounts of data across planning systems, transportation networks, warehouses, and customer interactions. Much of that data has been underutilized—captured, stored, but not fully leveraged to anticipate risk or improve outcomes.

That is changing.

The capability now exists—and is rapidly maturing—to sense, interpret, and act on that data in ways that were not previously practical. Risks can be identified earlier. Disruptions can be predicted. Corrective actions can be taken before the customer ever feels the impact.

From Disruption to Preventability

Over the past week, in the span of just six days and four unrelated conversations with members of my network, I heard a series of examples that all pointed to this shift.

• A global food company managing risk tied to a critical supplier whose quality issues could impact multiple major brands—raising the question of whether AI could have surfaced a near sole‑source dependency earlier.
• An e‑commerce retailer using machine learning to reduce theft and damage in its fulfillment network, improving the customer experience.
• An organization proactively shifting its fulfillment partner mix based on AI‑driven insights into which nodes can and cannot handle surge capacity.
• A high‑end clothing shipment arriving wet due to a fulfillment breakdown—where the loss was not just the product, but a time‑sensitive moment that could not be recovered.
• A consumer receiving an empty box after successfully purchasing a limited‑release product that could not be replaced.

These are not isolated anecdotes. The common thread is not disruption—it is preventability.

As AI enables earlier detection of risk, better prediction of disruptions, and faster response to exceptions, the tolerance for failure is declining. Companies are no longer judged simply on whether something went wrong. They are judged on whether it should have been avoided.

Brand Is the Delivered Experience

From a brand perspective, that is a fundamental shift.

A product brand may invest heavily in innovation and customer engagement. But if the product arrives damaged, late, or not at all, the customer does not distinguish between the brand owner and the supply chain behind it.

There is only one experience—and therefore only one brand.

In an AI‑enabled supply chain, failure is no longer just a risk—it is increasingly a choice.

The Weakest Node Defines the Brand

A brand is now only as strong as its weakest node.

That node may be a supplier, a logistics provider, a fulfillment partner, or a technology platform. Many sit outside the direct control of the brand owner, yet their performance is inseparable from the customer’s perception of the brand.

AI makes it possible to identify and address these weak points—but it also makes it more apparent when companies fail to do so.

Implications for the Supply Chain Ecosystem

This dynamic extends directly to platform and software providers. In an AI‑enabled environment, it is no longer sufficient for supply chain technology to be stable or functionally adequate. It must evolve—continuously—to sense risk earlier, enable better decisions, and improve execution outcomes. If it does not, its limitations will be exposed quickly, and alternatives will emerge.

Technology providers are not insulated by their brand; they are judged by the outcomes they enable. Their brand will strengthen if their platforms improve execution—and erode if they do not.

Product companies must use AI to protect the customer experience end‑to‑end. Logistics providers must adopt AI to remain credible partners. Technology providers must evolve their platforms to meet a higher execution standard.

If one part of the system advances while another does not, the gap will be visible—and acted upon quickly.

Winners and losers are being judged daily.

What This Means for Leaders

None of this suggests that brand is no longer important. In high‑trust, high‑risk environments—contracts, financial transactions, healthcare, and other sensitive use cases—brand remains critical.

Even in this environment, trust must be continuously reinforced through performance. Leaders must clearly understand what underpins their brand. Brand is not an asset to be protected; it is the result of consistently delivering on a promise. Any performance gaps must be addressed before others move in. AI‑enabled challengers will not challenge strengths—they will target weaknesses.

Finally, leaders must elevate their ecosystem. Brand performance is now inseparable from partner performance. That requires greater visibility, tighter integration, and higher expectations—not only internally, but across suppliers, logistics providers, and technology partners.

One Question to Answer Now

This execution dimension is only one part of how AI is reshaping brand—but it is already decisive.

A great product can still win. A strong brand can still endure. But in an AI‑driven world, where disruptions can be anticipated and failures mitigated, the margin for error is disappearing.

And in many cases—especially where the purchase is infrequent or the moment is critical—you only get one shot. At the conclusion of our discussion, one participant framed it simply:

What is our secret sauce—and what are we doing to build on it?

That is the question every supply chain leader should be answering now.

Because in an AI‑enabled world, your brand will be defined by what your system consistently delivers.

By Chris Gaffney, Managing Director of the Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute, Supply Chain Advisor, and former executive at Frito‑Lay, AJC International, and Coca‑Cola, and Michael Barnett, Founder and Principal of Synaptic SC, former global leader of Supply Chain AI at BCG, and former executive at Aera Technology and Koch Industries.

Entering 2026, one thing is clear: staying on the sidelines is no longer a viable option. We both agree that 2025 was the last year when being “behind” on AI adoption could be rationalized. In 2026, leaders cannot stay in the foxhole. They need to move forward, doing so in a way that reduces the risk of failure.

The past two years have been full of promise for AI in supply chain: we have seen impressive pilots, compelling research findings, and no shortage of claims about what agents and large language models can do. At the same time, many supply chain leaders are frustrated; there has been significant activity and investment in centralized capabilities without meaningful results in the supply chain. Too many efforts stall. Too many pilots never scale. Many organizations feel they have kissed a lot of frogs and are still waiting for something that works reliably.

The question for 2026 is no longer whether to engage with AI, but how to do so in a way that consistently delivers results. This is the year to put points on the board through disciplined, repeatable progress rather than moonshots.

Two Principles Separate Progress from Experimentation

Across our work and conversations with supply chain leaders, organizations that are driving tangible results tend to follow two principles, sometimes explicitly, sometimes intuitively:

1. Leverage GenAI Where It Adds Differential Value

Large language models are exceptionally strong at working with language. They summarize, explain, code, and translate intent into logic. This makes them powerful tools for accelerating development, analysis, and communication.

Much of supply chain execution, however, depends on precision. Planning rates, forecasts, production schedules, routing logic, and inventory policies rely on structured data, mathematical relationships, and deterministic logic. In these environments, hallucinations or probabilistic answers are not just inconvenient. They can be operationally disruptive.

Many early failures stem from applying LLMs where deterministic logic is required, rather than using them to support the creation, maintenance, and monitoring of that logic. In practice, GenAI is most effective upstream, helping teams build analytics faster, surface issues earlier, and lower the friction of development and maintenance.

2. Design with People in the Loop

This is not only a philosophical stance. It reflects technical reality. While recent research shows that collections of agents can outperform humans in controlled settings, production supply chains are not laboratories. They are complex, interconnected processes and organizations that operate in a dynamic, ever-changing environment. In contrast to AI that augments workers, fully autonomous systems introduce risks—technical, organizational, and reputational—that erode the incremental value relative to the increased costs to develop and maintain them.

Human-in-the-loop is not a concession. It is a design principle.

From Ideation to Error-Proofed Execution

Most supply chain organizations are not short on AI use cases. What they lack are clear, high‑probability paths to value creation.

A familiar pattern plays out: organizations rush into pilots without a clear view of where AI adds value. Results are mixed and hard to interpret. When early efforts disappoint, leaders become more cautious, not because they doubt AI’s potential, but because they are wary of repeating visible failures.

One executive described this dynamic as being "tired of kissing frogs." After aggressively leaning into new technologies early, the organization became skeptical, insisting on external proof and peer validation before investing further.

The more productive question is no longer "What is the most advanced thing we can try?" but instead: "What can we do today that has a high probability of working, scaling, and building our capabilities?"

How to Put Points on the Board in 2026

Across our experimentation and advisory work, two areas consistently emerge where GenAI is already delivering value.

Enterprise Productivity: The Safest On-Ramp

The most reliable progress comes from improving everyday productivity.

Most organizations take a restrictive approach, limiting AI access to a small group or tightly controlled pilots led by centralized technical teams, only to realize they were slowing learning and adoption across the enterprise. In one large retailer, leadership initially centralized AI use due to security and governance concerns. Over time, they shifted to enterprise licensing that centralized risk management while allowing broader employee access within guardrails.

The result was not chaos or "shadow IT." It was productivity: meeting summaries, analysis support, presentation development, and faster access to internal knowledge.

These gains may sound modest, but they matter. Giving people five to ten hours per week back changes how employees experience AI. It becomes a tool that helps them do their jobs better, not a signal that their jobs are being automated away.

For leaders, this means actively enabling access to approved tools, supporting skill development, and encouraging experimentation within clear boundaries. This is one of the most straightforward ways to quickly and visibly put points on the board.

Decision Intelligence: Rewiring the Operating Model

Advanced analytics, optimization, and planning systems predate GenAI. What is new is not the math, but rather the speed, accessibility, and maintainability of building and sustaining advanced analytics solutions.

GenAI acts as an accelerator. It reduces the friction of writing code, standing up, monitoring logic, and explaining results. It brings advanced capabilities closer to the business, rather than confining them to a small central team.

A concrete example comes from production planning. Planned production rates are often set during commissioning or early ramp up and then reused for long periods. Over time, changes in labor mix, maintenance practices, or product complexity cause actual throughput to drift. Plans continue to run, but they quietly degrade.

In effective implementations, GenAI does not update the planning system autonomously. Instead, it operates adjacent to it. It helps teams build monitoring logic that compares planned versus actual performance, surfaces statistically meaningful drift, and generates candidate adjustments with supporting context. Planners review and approve changes before they are re-ingested into the APS.

The system of record remains intact. Human accountability is preserved. What improves is the speed, frequency, and quality of assumption hygiene, enabling earlier detection of problems before they cascade into service, cost, or inventory issues.

Avoid Kissing Frogs: Technology and Organizational Choices

Many organizations “kiss frogs” not because the new technology is flawed, but because they are not ready to adopt it.

To avoid this fate, successful efforts often include the following elements:

1. Leverage existing, approved AI platforms rather than onboarding new technologies
   • Accelerates time to value
   • Helps define the true limitations of your current technology stack to guide future platform selection
2. Maximize the value of current systems (e.g., APS, production scheduling software) instead of chasing new applications
   • Existing, complex supply chain software often under-delivers on its promised value
   • AI agents and workflows are highly effective at improving master data quality and ensuring planning parameters are accurate
3. Foster ideation and solution development with internal teams, while using third parties to accelerate capability building—not to replace it
4. Make progress visible by sharing early wins, curating employee-driven experiments, and scaling what works

Change management is not an option; it must be designed into every aspect of an AI program from the start. When organizations invest heavily in advanced capabilities at the top while doing little to equip everyday employees, the message received is often, "This is happening to you, not for you." That perception creates resistance, fear, and organizational drag.

Effective leaders communicate a clear vision for how new capabilities will augment, not replace, their teams, so that scarce human intellect is applied where it adds the most value.

Key Actions to Win in 2026

The principles are clear. The opportunity is real. The question now is execution.

If 2026 is the year to put points on the board, supply chain leaders must move from experimentation to engineered progress. That begins with clarity.

1. Define a Multi-Year AI Value Vision

Develop a concrete view of how AI will create value in your organization over the next several years. Not a collection of pilots. Not a list of tools. A clear articulation of where and how AI will improve productivity, strengthen decision quality, and increase operational reliability.

That vision should:

• Clarify where AI will augment human decision-making versus automate tasks
• Identify the business outcomes you expect to improve (service, cost, inventory, resilience, productivity)
• Guide decisions on organizational design, platform selection, governance, and partnerships
• Establish sequencing - what you will enable now versus what must wait

Without a defined direction, AI efforts default to software deployment. With it, technology becomes a lever for measurable operational improvement.

2. Enable Broad, Responsible Access

Capability development accelerates when access is not unnecessarily constrained. Ensure that team members at every level - from executives to frontline planners - have access to approved enterprise AI tools and agent-building capabilities, along with practical training tied to real workflows.

Effective enablement includes:

• Enterprise licensing and governance that remove friction while protecting data
• Hands-on guidance tied directly to day-to-day supply chain work - reporting, master data cleanup, production monitoring, inventory analysis, schedule validation
• Clear operating guardrails that define appropriate data use and boundaries
• Leadership support for responsible experimentation

Restricting access may feel prudent. In practice, it slows learning and reinforces dependency on centralized teams. Broad enablement builds capability across the organization.

3. Create Local Ideation and Scaling Mechanisms

Durable progress does not originate only from centralized programs. It often begins at the front line.
Leaders should create simple, visible mechanisms for individuals and teams to experiment within defined guardrails and to share what they are building.

This includes:

• Recurring forums or showcases where teams present working solutions
• Curated libraries of effective prompts, workflows, and agents
• Clear channels for submitting ideas and documenting results

Most importantly, organizations must be able to move from local experimentation to scaled adoption. That requires:

• Identifying the strongest minimum viable solutions emerging from the field
• Refining and hardening them into repeatable workflows
• Productizing and scaling what demonstrably improves performance

The objective is not activity. It is building capability that compounds over time.

These steps are straightforward. They require intention and follow-through. That is what separates durable capability from scattered experimentation.

It is not too late to lead. The last several years have provided lessons - technical, organizational, and cultural. Leaders who absorb those lessons and design deliberately for scale will build AI capabilities that strengthen over time.

That kind of progress is not flashy. It does not depend on moonshots or fully autonomous systems operating in isolation. It depends on clarity, access, discipline, and accountability.

In 2026, novelty will attract attention. Durability will create an advantage.

The organizations that win will not be the ones with the most pilots. They will be the ones who consistently translate AI into measurable operational improvement.

This is the year to move from experimentation to engineered results.

Put points on the board.

By Chris Gaffney, Managing Director, Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute | Supply Chain Advisor | Former Executive at Frito-Lay, AJC International, and Coca-Cola

People often ask me a simple question: “You always recommend a good book to read; what have you read lately?”

I usually give them my version of a money-back guarantee. I haven’t had to pay up yet!

The Thinking Machine, Stephen Witt’s book on Jensen Huang and NVIDIA, is one of those recommendations.

It’s a fast, engaging read that packs a lot of insight into a book you can finish in just a couple of days. It’s also one of the most interesting books I’ve read this past year out of a stack of twenty or thirty. Most importantly for my world, it’s a book from which supply chain students, young professionals, and senior leaders can all take something different.

What many supply chain readers may not realize is that NVIDIA’s story is, at its core, a case study in supply chain design, constraint management, and long-horizon system building played out on a global stage.

This book matters to me because it pulls back the curtain on the largest technology shift impacting supply chains this century. It shows it not just as a technology story, but as a supply chain, leadership, and ethics story hiding in plain sight.

More Than a Tech Book

On the surface, this is a story about GPUs, artificial intelligence, and one of the most important technology companies in the world. But underneath, it’s really a story about context: how ideas evolve, how industries form, and how long-term decisions compound over decades.

You don’t need to be an engineer to enjoy it. By the time you’re done, you’ll have a much better grasp of:

• why chips matter,
• why AI depends on physical infrastructure,
• and why supply chains quietly shape what’s possible.

That combination makes the book especially relevant for anyone building a career in supply chain, operations, or industrial leadership.

The Immigrant Story — Still Worth Protecting

One of the most powerful threads running through the book is Jensen Huang’s immigrant story.

His family worked hard to come to the United States. He grew up in modest circumstances, and through persistence, opportunity, and relentless effort, he helped build a company with global impact.

For many of our ancestors, this story feels familiar. For many who come to the U.S. today, it still represents hope. The book serves as a quiet reminder that this pathway from modest beginnings to meaningful contribution is not accidental; it is something that needs to be protected.

The United States is far from perfect, but it remains a remarkable place to innovate and to start businesses. Supply chains are both a driver of that innovation and a beneficiary of the new ideas that emerge.

A Startup Story With Real Twists and Turns

The founding of NVIDIA is not a clean, linear success story.

The original big idea wasn’t necessarily the one that ultimately “won,” and the initial target market wasn’t always the right one. The company faced near-death moments, pivots, resets, and more than a few reasons to walk away.

For students and young professionals considering startups, whether founding one or joining one, this book offers a realistic picture of what that path looks like. It reinforces a few hard truths:

• the probability of failure is high,
• the work ethic required is enormous,
• and the rewards, if they come, often come much later.

I often describe this as a “one scoop now, two scoops later” dynamic. Early effort is rarely rewarded proportionally; patience matters more than hype.

Innovation Is a Team Sport

While Jensen Huang is clearly the centerpiece of the book, one of its strengths is that it avoids treating innovation as a solo act.

Many other players, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unwittingly, contributed research, ideas, and decisions that ultimately shaped where we sit today. The book does a good job showing how progress builds through layers of contribution, often across institutions and generations.

This matters, especially for students and early-career professionals. Breakthroughs rarely come from a single moment or a single person; they come from systems that allow ideas to accumulate and translate into real-world application.

From Basic Engineering to Neural Networks

Several chapters walk through the literal evolution of the technology, and this is where the book is both accessible and impressive.

Even if you can only “just barely hang on” technically, the narrative is clear: today’s AI capabilities are the result of layered progress. Hardware advances built on earlier hardware, software abstractions built on earlier software, and research findings translated into application over time.

Many of the contributors moved fluidly between academia and industry, reinforcing a core lesson: foundational science and engineering still matter. For those of us who remember an analog world, it’s fascinating to see how decades of incremental progress led to the current state and potential of AI.

A Supply Chain Story Hiding in Plain Sight

From a supply chain perspective, The Thinking Machine reads like a case study hiding in plain sight.

NVIDIA is an American innovation success story that is, at the same time, deeply dependent on global supply chains. Its relationship with TSMC in Taiwan, the scarcity of advanced manufacturing capacity, the national security implications of certain chips, and the need to serve global markets all create a complex and fragile operating reality.

One of the quieter but most powerful lessons in the book is how much supply chain design matters. Product success here isn’t just about better ideas; it’s about how effectively those ideas are translated into scalable, resilient, global systems.

AI may feel digital, but its limits are profoundly physical.

Leadership Results — and a Real Paradox

The book also forces an uncomfortable but important leadership conversation.

Jensen Huang is demanding, intense, and uncompromising. While the results are undeniable, I don’t advocate for many aspects of his leadership style. I believe similar outcomes could be achieved without subjecting employees to public humiliation.

Results matter, but how we get them matters too.

Reading this book reminded me that some of the most valuable leadership lessons I’ve learned came from watching both how to lead and how not to lead. I’ve had bosses who modeled the kind of leader I wanted to become, and a few who taught me just as much by showing me what I wanted to avoid. Both experiences have been valuable.

That tension is worth sitting with, especially for those mentoring the next generation of leaders.

Computer Vision, GPUs, and Adaptability

Computer vision plays a supporting role in the story: not the headline act, but an important early driver. Graphics and vision workloads helped shape GPU architectures long before today’s generative AI boom.

Over time, those architectures generalized to support a wide range of parallel computation, including neural networks. It’s a reminder that technologies often succeed not because of a single application, but because they are flexible enough to evolve.

Ethics, Uncertainty, and Responsibility

Finally, the book leaves us with unresolved questions, and that may be its most honest contribution.

AI is resource-intensive, it will reshape work and livelihoods, and it raises real ethical concerns. Opinions vary widely on whether this moment resembles past industrial revolutions or represents something fundamentally different.

I teach and advocate for the application of AI, but I personally struggle with these ethical dilemmas. Rather than avoid them, I try to address them head-on by highlighting the risks and encouraging students to stay informed so they can be voices for responsible, positive use.

In today’s global and regulatory environment, it’s unrealistic to expect a pause in research or application. Education, not avoidance, may be the most practical form of governance we have.

We can’t guarantee how this plays out over the next decade, but we can prepare.

Why I Keep Recommending This Book

If you’re a supply chain student looking for context, a young professional navigating career choices, or a senior leader trying to understand how AI, supply chains, leadership, and ethics intersect, this is a book worth your time.

It’s engaging, timely, and surprisingly human.

And when someone asks me, “What are you reading?”

This is the book I’ll keep recommending.

The Thinking Machine succeeds because it reminds us that behind AI are people, supply chains, and long-term decisions, all operating under real constraints. That’s a lesson worth revisiting as we set the pace for the months ahead.

A Closing Question

This book highlights traditional supply chain constraints that NVIDIA faced in its growth journey, such as single source supply, perceived lead times, capacity at key suppliers, demand volatility, and talent gaps. Where have you seen or faced these, and how have you and your company navigated them?

By Chris Gaffney, Managing Director, Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute | Supply Chain Advisor | Former Executive at Frito-Lay, AJC International, and Coca-Cola

Introduction

The supply chain labor market has been through one of the most dramatic swings in modern history. During the COVID-19 era disruption, talent shortages were acute, and the pendulum swung decisively toward employees. Companies paid top dollar, offered unprecedented flexibility, and competed fiercely for planners, warehouse leaders, S&OP talent, logistics managers, strategic sourcing leaders, and procurement specialists.

But the pendulum swung back in the opposite direction, from whence it came: in favor of the employers.

The past 18–24 months have seen hiring across supply chain cooling. Many large companies are now signaling they intend to grow revenue without necessarily increasing headcount. At the same time, AI and automation have gotten to the point where employers can get more productivity from existing teams. The result is not necessarily indicative of a recessionary job market but a “Great Hiring Pause”: low hiring, low firing, and a clear tilt of bargaining power back toward employers.

The key question now is whether this moment represents a temporary pause or the new normal. Additionally, what does this mean for both hiring managers and early to mid-career supply chain professionals who want to stay competitive in the workplace?

We’ll explore what this means for all stakeholders as we wrap up the year, looking at how the supply chain job market evolved in 2025 and what we expect to see in 2026.

The Pendulum has Swung from Employee Power to Employer Advantage

If you had as little as 5 years of supply chain experience in late 2020–2022, you may have found yourself with competing job offers. Compensation packages offered were lucrative and filled with relocation fees or even 100% remote job offers.

Without a doubt, this shaped the next 2–3 years of the supply chain labor force. Office space sat empty. Employees moved out of the city into the suburbs. Work-life balance improved for everyone. Employers fretted over rents and mortgages on office space and whether their highly compensated employees were actually working. Threats of a pending recession loomed but never materialized. (fingers crossed, knock on wood). Employers ran a bit lean but then found themselves needing more people to keep up with demand.

In early 2025, we wrote about this swing and the influence AI and automation had on supply chain hiring. Companies seemed to be focusing more on how they could accelerate the performance of existing teams while navigating new cost influences and demand swings. Anxiety about the economy amid never-before-seen tariff whims made it increasingly difficult for employers to plan reliable growth strategies for 2026.

And now here we are. The prevailing mindset as we close out a volatile 2025, where AI and tariffs took center stage, is for growth without as much hiring. So what does that mean for 2026 for employers and employees, or aspiring employees?

Growth Without Hiring: Why Companies are Staying Lean Across Supply Chain and Logistics

Executives are treating hiring as a last resort and not a first resort. JP Morgan Chase’s CFO reportedly said the firm has a “strong bias” against reflexively hiring new people. Walmart, Inc. has signaled plans to grow revenue without increasing employee numbers, instead relying more on automation/AI and efficiency improvements.

As mentioned above, market indicators have become increasingly unreliable. Recent Black Friday consumer spending data indicate that people are financing their purchases on credit and using buy-now, pay-later plans. This means less cash injected into the economy in the short term, along with increased interest payments for 95% of the purchases made on Black Friday. Retailers rely heavily on consumer spending and demand, which dictate their growth or lack thereof.

Businesses have also decided to engage in what some are calling “The Great Freeze”, which is not to hire but also to not fire—holding steady on headcount until they can get a better feel for what 2026 will offer from a demand and affordability sense. High inflation affects everyone, which is why many employers are riding it out for a while.

The Risks of Going Too Lean: Burnout, Fragility, and a Shrinking Talent Pipeline

For supply chain organizations, running lean means pressure to improve throughput, reduce waste, and automate more tasks. While the rapid emergence of AI and automation has greatly improved efficiencies, you still need people to understand the best use cases for all of these tools. They can certainly be enhancements, but will backfire if they are seen to be wholesale replacements for full-time employees. This backlash is being felt and mentioned a lot more consistently. AI shouldn’t replace humans, but rather, make them superhuman.

Firms may invest in upskilling existing staff rather than hiring large numbers of junior or mid-level staff. This could help manage costs in a turbulent economy. This is a tricky game, though. Keeping headcount flat while demands increase can lead to burnout, skill gaps, or degraded service if not managed carefully. Productivity gains might be possible, but at what cost? Change management, culture shift, lack of future talent pipeline, and succession planning can place your supply chain at great risk. Think about it: What will you do about career progression, worker loyalty, and organizational capability in 5–10 years? Yes, AI and automation are force multipliers, but not force replacers.

The people who succeed are those who take a measured approach to talent decisions. It is a refrain that has been emphasized for years. Overly lean operations become fragile, just as banking talent balloons your costs. The goal is to strike a balance between the two.

Will the Pendulum Swing Again?

The short answer: not anytime soon. Today’s flat hiring environment is not just a reaction to inflation or a temporary post-COVID correction or regression to the mean. It is influenced by other structural forces like AI maturity, demographic shifts (including the aging of the workforce), productivity pressure, and a corporate mindset increasingly comfortable with “growth without headcount.”

So what now? Employees should pay attention to these moves and make themselves more valuable by staying proactive. Do not wait for a chance to improve your position. Seek it out.

Find collaborative opportunities with your peers outside of your specific silo. Cross-functional literacy takes center stage to increase one’s value. There has been career acceleration among mid-level supply chain professionals who can work across the organization and become proficient in a multitude of functions. Increase your functional knowledge base and increase your organizational value at the same time.

This is not the time to be complacent or average. Employers still need people with elite soft skills such as leadership, personnel management, communication, and initiative. Visible contributions are essential and will separate those who thrive from those who are content to endure.

There is also hope on the horizon. An elite supply chain institution recently reported that more than 85% of their spring graduates received high-level roles. Another hopeful metric is the rise in offers coming to every supply chain graduate. These numbers are all trending up, which means that the supply chain is strong and in need of a robust talent pipeline.

Employees must demonstrate they can become experienced—if not fluent—with AI tools that make individuals more productive. Use them to lift your value. Differentiation is the name of the game in a field where the top 10–15 percent of talent still commands a premium.

This was explored further in an article written for Georgia Tech this summer. AI is not the end, it is the beginning:

I firmly believe professionals—especially early in their careers—should spend 3 to 5 years in front-line roles. No AI tool can replicate the kind of intuition you build by seeing how things work, where they break, and how people respond in real time. That foundation lasts an entire career.

There will always be a place where the human edge is necessary. The goal is to find where you fit and how you can use AI to your advantage while honing and refining your soft skills. Do not be afraid to make mistakes, either. It is one of the best ways to learn.

Conclusion: Planning for Stability in an Unstable Market

The supply chain talent pendulum has clearly swung back toward employers, and the forces keeping it there are unlikely to fade any time soon. AI maturity, demographic stagnation, post-COVID overcorrections, and a corporate appetite for “growth without hiring” all point to a labor market that may remain employer-favored through 2027 or 2028. But the story does not end there. The pendulum can shift again, and it will if several conditions align: steady consumer demand, renewed business investment, lower interest rates, stable inflation, and a labor market that stays tight enough to force companies to compete for talent rather than squeeze more productivity out of smaller teams.

For employees, waiting for that moment is a recipe for disaster and is not a strategy for success. This is the time to skill up, stand out, and become visibly indispensable. Become more proficient with AI tools, expand your cross-functional range, and build the soft skills that technology cannot replace. Your competition now becomes yourself. There is no better time to be a “self-starter” than now.

For employers, running lean perpetually will not provide a bulletproof bottom line. There is risk to succession planning and employee morale through burnout and stagnation. Continue strategically building internal pipelines. The job market has plenty of talent at a premium right now, so find people who can help you maintain operations and grow into more senior roles as the economy rebounds. Workforce resilience cannot be built overnight, and organizations that fail to adequately invest now will struggle later.

“Steady-Eddie” remains the preferred path. Do not overhire or overfire. Aim for a sweet spot that maintains growth, protects margins, and creates a small cushion of resilience for the labor pool. The companies that invest smartly and the employees who stay adaptable, proactive, and highly visible have the chance to define the next era of supply chain leadership, no matter where the pendulum lands.

Call to Action: What This Means for You—and What to Do Next

If these dynamics feel familiar—or unsettling—you are not alone. Moments like this are precisely when intentional investment in skills, talent pipelines, and professional networks matters most.

For students and early-career professionals

This is the time to differentiate, not wait. Employers are hiring selectively, and they are looking for candidates who combine foundational supply chain experience with strong communication, cross-functional literacy, and practical fluency with analytics and AI-enabled tools. Georgia Tech’s Supply Chain and Logistics Institute (SCL) offers professional education courses designed to build exactly these capabilities—grounded in real-world application, not theory alone.

For working professionals

If you are navigating growth-without-hiring realities, reskilling and upskilling are no longer optional. SCL programs help professionals sharpen decision-making, leadership, and applied technical skills that increase both individual and organizational resilience—especially in environments where headcount is constrained but expectations are rising.

For hiring managers and employers

Even in a cautious hiring market, the competition for top-tier supply chain talent has not disappeared—it has become more targeted. Engaging early with Georgia Tech SCL allows you to connect with high-caliber students, support a durable talent pipeline, and partner on developing skills that align with where supply chains are headed, not where they have been.

Readers are also encouraged to explore SCM-focused podcasts and practitioner conversations—including leadership, career-path, and “day-in-the-life” perspectives—that help translate these labor market shifts into practical guidance. These voices complement formal education by offering lived experience and real-world context during periods of uncertainty.

For those wondering how to navigate what comes next, staying connected with Georgia Tech SCL can be valuable. In a January 2026 webinar, the team will preview an emerging trend expected to materially shape supply chain roles, workforce expectations, and talent strategies over the next 3–5 years—particularly at the intersection of AI enablement, front-line experience, and leadership readiness.

This moment favors those who engage early, build capability deliberately, and stay connected to credible institutions shaping the future of supply chain practice.

This content was developed in collaboration with SCM Talent Group, a supply chain recruiting and executive search firm.

Resources

• Associated Press — “US hiring stalls with employers reluctant to expand...” (reports just ~22,000 jobs in a month). AP News
• CBS News — Supporting story on same 22,000-job report / labor-market cooldown. CBS News
• PBS NewsHour — Analysis of U.S. hiring stall and its implications. PBS
• Business Insider — Coverage of weak August 2025 jobs report and growing caution in labor markets. Business Insider
• The Wall Street Journal — “Jobs Report Shows Hiring Slowed in August 2025” (subscription-gated). The Wall Street Journal
• Bloomberg — Reporting that job openings and hiring have decoupled despite rising corporate capital expenditures; signals firms are investing without matching headcount growth. Bloomberg
• Walmart / Newsweek — Recent article on Walmart celebrating automation and signaling flat headcount even as business grows. Newsweek

Scott King is the Director of Strategic Planning for One MHS (Material Handling System) at Amazon. In this role, Scott is supporting the transformation of Amazon's material handling systems to an integrated ecosystem of purpose-built equipment and intelligent software.

Prior to joining One MHS, Scott was Director of Worldwide Design and Engineering for Retail Core Fulfillment/Transportation at Amazon, where he was responsible for the design and development of global supply chain capability to support business growth across Amazon's vast network. He led critical design reviews with senior executives, effectively communicating vision, technology development roadmaps, and solutions to make compelling business cases at the VP, SVP, and CEO levels. 

His expertise covers the full spectrum of Amazon's supply chain operations, including first mile facilities (transload facilities, import processing centers, and inbound cross docks), production on demand (books, disks, custom merchandise), fulfillment centers (both Amazon Robotics and traditional facilities supporting conveyable and non-conveyable products across diverse merchandise categories), air and ground transportation (ground hubs, sort centers, air hubs and air gateways), and seasonal/specialty operations (quick-deploy, returns processing, and reverse logistics). 

Since joining Amazon in 2015, Scott has been influential in technological breakthroughs in robotics and AI, enabling new opportunities to broaden the types of deployable systems by using computer vision and machine learning to unlock new capabilities. He leads the development of integrated systems-of-systems that balance process optimization and intentional automation to ensure humans and technology work together safely and efficiently. During his tenure Amazon has achieved the largest deployment of industrial robotics and mechatronics on earth.

Prior to Amazon, Scott served as Project Manager and Lead Engineer for Direct Fulfillment Supply Chain at The Home Depot from 2011 to 2014, where he developed comprehensive omni-channel supply chain architecture and was recognized as Supply Chain "Leader of the Month" for his work on e-commerce facility network design and  startup. Earlier in his career, he spent six years at Office Depot as Senior Manager for Engineering, Continuous Improvement, and Supply Chain, where he received the Global Innovation Award for implementing lean principles to achieve 57% cycle time reductions across the fulfillment network.

Scott holds both Bachelor's and Master's degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology — a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering (2004) and a Master of Science in Systems Engineering (2011). His graduate work included analyzing future cargo aircraft and automotive designs, supply chain network simulations, advanced supply chain robotics, and autonomous robotics integration with human systems.

As an Industrial and Systems Engineer with over 20 years of industry experience, Scott brings expertise in strategic business planning, logistics network analysis and design, automation and robotics, statistical modeling, continuous process improvement, and team leadership.

SCL appreciates Scott's participation and will leverage his extensive expertise in global supply chain design, automation, robotics, and systems engineering to help shape our strategic initiatives and provide valuable insights to our research and educational programs.
 

By Chris Gaffney, Managing Director, Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute | Supply Chain Advisor | Former Executive at Frito-Lay, AJC International, and Coca-Cola

In today's supply chain environment, the pace and scale of change are no longer episodic — they are constant. Network redesigns, automation investments, digital transformation, new product and business models, shifting customer expectations, cost pressure, and talent dynamics all converge at once. 

Here is the most direct insight I can offer — and one I have come to believe deeply through experience:

“If you want your organization, automation, or Digital/AI investments to pay off, change management is not optional. It is the highest-leverage point of failure or success.”

Despite decades of innovation, the uncomfortable truth is that most large-scale supply chain transformations still fall short. According to a recent Bain survey, 70% of major transformations fail to meet their objectives — a number that has remained stubbornly consistent over time. The reasons vary, but the most common root cause is not the technology — it’s the people side of the change.

This is why change management must be treated as a leadership discipline at the center of supply chain excellence. And it is why this topic continues to rise in conversations I have with industry partners, consulting clients, and the students entering the field. 

Where I First Learned the Power of Change Leadership 

This isn’t an abstract subject for me — it is something I experienced in my career. When I worked at The Coca-Cola Company, the business went through multiple waves of transformation over a 10–15 year period: acquisitions and integrations, major information-system deployments, shifts in the beverage portfolio, and cultural changes as carbonated soft drink growth slowed.

As the company diversified into new beverage categories, the economics shifted and productivity expectations rose. The technical challenges were significant, but what stood out to me was this:

“The difference between transformations that succeeded and those that stalled was how effectively people were brought into the change — how well they understood it, aligned with it, and adapted to it.”

Strong technical designs struggled if people weren’t aligned. But “good enough” solutions thrived when the organization invested in communication, role clarity, and capability-building.

Later in my career, during my time as President of Coca-Cola Supply, we made one of the most durable leadership investments I’ve ever seen: certifying the entire organization in the Coca-Cola change model. Many of those leaders still apply the same principles today — 15 to 20 years later — because the skills became part of how they led, not something they had to remember.

That experience shaped how I see change leadership today.

What Today’s Supply Chain Landscape Is Telling Us

Across industries — and especially across complex supply chains — the same patterns repeat.

WMS and automation vendors now budget change management into implementation plans. They’ve learned that even well-designed systems fail if associates fear job loss or can’t visualize the “after” state of their work.

Consulting firms see adoption challenges as the biggest barrier to client success. A firm we taught recently added change management to their executive education curriculum because their teams saw change gaps in almost every engagement. Months later, that module remains the highest-value part of the course.

Network design firms observe cultural resistance across geographies. Even optimized solutions don’t transfer cleanly from one region to another. Culture, norms, and expectations matter — often more than the math.

Robotics and automation projects fail for people reasons, not engineering reasons. At the recent RoboGeorgia Forum, the keynote emphasized that a surprising percentage of large automation investments fail because of unclear roles, resistance, weak communication, and fear — not limitations in the technology.

AI adoption mirrors these challenges. According to a recent McKinsey Global AI survey, only one-third say they are scaling AI enterprise-wide, and just 39% report measurable EBIT impact. The survey reinforces that even when technology works, the real barrier is organizational readiness — leadership alignment, redesigned processes, clear governance, and a reskilled workforce — not model performance.

There is also strong evidence showing that when change leadership is done well, project outcomes dramatically improve. In a benchmarking study of more than 2,600 initiatives, Prosci found that 88% of projects with excellent change management met or exceeded their objectives, compared with only 13% of those with poor change management. Projects with excellent change management were also 5 times more likely to stay on or ahead of schedule and 1.5 times more likely to stay on or under budget. These findings reinforce a simple truth: effective change leadership is directly correlated with higher performance, better adoption, and faster time to value.

Put simply:

“Technical innovation moves faster than organizational adoption — and the gap costs time, money, and credibility.”

Why We Still Struggle With Change, Even Though We “Know Better”

Here's where a critical-thinking lens helps:

• We have 50 years of research on how change works.
• We have widely used models.
• We have entire consulting practices devoted to change.
• And most leaders have lived through multiple transformations.

So why does the gap persist?

Leaders confuse technical readiness with organizational readiness. A strong design doesn’t guarantee strong adoption.

Self-interest is underestimated. Logic rarely moves people. Personal impact does.

Urgency pressures force shortcuts. Go-live dates push leaders to cut corners on communication, training, and role clarity — the exact things that prevent failure.

Leaders assume operations teams “will adjust.” This is the most common miscalculation. Operational excellence does not automatically translate to change readiness.

These points explain the paradox: even experienced leaders underestimate the work of leading people through change. 

The Two Leading Change Management Models: Kotter and ADKAR

Dozens of frameworks exist, but two stand clearly above the rest in terms of use, validation, and practical effectiveness in modern supply chain and technology environments: Kotter’s 8-Step Process and the Prosci ADKAR model.

Frameworks like Kotter and ADKAR are powerful, but they don't replace judgment. Real change leadership requires applying these tools with situational awareness, not following them mechanically.

Kotter’s 8 Steps focus on organization-wide transformation:

1. Create a sense of urgency: Show why change is necessary and the potential consequences of not changing.
2. Build a guiding coalition: Assemble a team with enough power and influence to lead the change effort and encourage teamwork.
3. Form a strategic vision: Develop a clear vision for the future and strategies to achieve it, making it clear how things will be different.
4. Communicate the change vision: Widely and often communicate the vision to get buy-in and inspire action from others.
5. Empower broad-based action: Remove obstacles and barriers, such as outdated processes or resistant individuals, to enable employees to act on the vision.
6. Generate short-term wins: Plan for and celebrate early successes to build momentum and prove that progress is being made.
7. Consolidate gains and build on the change: Use the credibility from initial wins to tackle larger, more complex changes, and don't declare victory too early.
8. Anchor new approaches in the culture: Reinforce the new behaviors, processes, and practices until they become a permanent part of the organization's culture. 

ADKAR focuses on individual adoption:

• Awareness  – Of the need for change
• Desire – To Participate and support the change
• Knowledge  – On how to change
• Ability  – To implement required skills and behaviors
• Reinforcement – To sustain the change

The synthesis: 
Kotter shows leaders how to orchestrate change. 
ADKAR shows leaders how to scale it through people. 
Supply chain leaders benefit from understanding both.

What Supply Chain Leaders Can Do on Monday

A practical call to action for building your own change leadership muscle:

1. Run a 15-minute clarity check with your team.

Ask:

• What change is coming?
• Why is it happening?
• Who will feel it most?
• What might they fear losing?

2. Identify the two individuals most affected by the change.

Ask:

• What will their new day actually look like?
• What one action can support them?

3. Choose one communication habit and make it consistent.

Options include:

• A Friday “What’s coming next” email
• A weekly dashboard
• A Monday 10-minute huddle

4. Map one current project against Kotter or ADKAR.

• Pick a project already underway.
• Identify the missing step.
• Strengthen it.

5. Model the behaviors you want to see.

• Be the first adopter.
• Be transparent.
• Be steady.

A Personal Reflection (Full Circle)

Looking back at my time at Coca-Cola Supply, the decision to certify the entire organization in change leadership stands out as one of the smartest investments we made. It gave us a shared language and a shared discipline for supporting people through transformation.

Fifteen to twenty years later, I still see those leaders applying those principles instinctively. That’s what happens when change management becomes part of a leadership culture — a natural reflex, not a task.

My hope is that every supply chain professional, whether student or senior leader, will build this capability. Because:

“Technology will keep evolving. People will remain the center of every transformation.”

Final Thought: “Says Easy, Does Hard” — But Always Worth It

Supply chains do not succeed because of perfect plans or flawless systems. They succeed because the people who operate them understand the change, believe in it, and are supported through it.

This is a muscle worth building. And it’s one that lasts.

If You Need Support — We’re Here to Help

If your organization is navigating a transformation and wants support building these capabilities, please reach out to us at the Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute (SCL). We are actively working with companies across Georgia and beyond, sharing what we’ve learned and offering short, practical workshops on change leadership for supply chain teams. We’re always happy to help organizations strengthen this essential muscle.

By Chris Gaffney, Managing Director, Georgia Tech Supply Chain and Logistics Institute | Supply Chain Advisor | Former Executive at Frito-Lay, AJC International, and Coca-Cola

The Moment That Changed How I Listen 

When I chaired the National Product Supply Group at Coca-Cola, one of our most respected board members was Jeff Edwards. Jeff had decades of experience and commanded respect without ever seeking attention. In a four-hour meeting, Jeff might speak two or three times—never more. But when he did, everyone stopped to listen.

What made Jeff so impactful wasn’t the number of words he used—it was the care behind them. He listened intently, gathered information, built context, and added value only when his perspective would move the conversation forward. His real skill was not speaking—it was listening with purpose.

That experience stayed with me, especially because earlier in my own career, I had a very different experience. While working at AJC International, I attended a leadership program at the Center for Creative Leadership. Early in the program, a cohort of about twenty of us sat in a facilitated discussion. What we didn’t know was that we were being filmed.

Later that day, each of us reviewed our videos one-on-one with an instructor. Watching myself was humbling. I saw a young professional trying too hard to prove himself—talking far too much, jumping in before others, and dominating the conversation. It was uncomfortable to watch, but invaluable. It forced me to face how insecurity can manifest as over-talking and how much more powerful restraint and self-awareness can be. I’ve been on a "less is more" journey ever since.

Why Communication Is a Supply Chain Differentiator 

We often talk about supply chain as end-to-end, but that phrase means something deeper than process visibility—it implies constant collaboration. Supply chain professionals must connect with suppliers, customers, and internal stakeholders across every function. 

That means communication is the connective tissue of our profession.

• Upstream and downstream, we are translators—interpreting complex data, system logic, and network realities for people who make decisions.
• Inside organizations, we act as bridges between technical teams and commercial leaders.
• Across tiers, we negotiate, influence, and build trust with partners who don’t see what we see every day.

Even as automation expands, supply chains remain messy, human, and physical. Systems can handle the routine, but edge cases, disruptions, and exceptions still rely on judgment—and judgment relies on communication. The ability to see, listen, and convey context in real time is what keeps operations resilient when variability strikes.

In our earlier SCL articles, we wrote that skills that survive AI are the ones that emphasize human discernment—and that critical thinking is about interpreting and questioning rather than accepting data at face value. Communication is where these two intersect. It is how human understanding flows across the supply chain network.

When Communication Breaks Down

I once worked with a technically gifted colleague—let’s call him Forrest—who had deep analytical capability but struggled to speak up in group settings. His insights were sharp, but his inability to communicate them left him isolated. Eventually, he left the organization. It was a tough reminder that technical strength without communication is unrealized potential.

In a global supply chain, it’s not enough to know the answer. You have to make others understand why it’s the answer—and what to do with it. Communication is how insight becomes action. 

The Many Dimensions of Communication

We tend to equate communication with speaking, but it’s much broader. Great communicators master four dimensions:

1. Speaking – Conveying information clearly, concisely, and confidently.
2. Writing – Capturing ideas and decisions in a way that travels across teams and time zones.
3. Listening – Absorbing context before contributing, and letting others be heard.
4. Observing – Seeing what others miss and using that insight to guide action.

The fourth one—observing—is often overlooked.

Recently, while reading with my granddaughter, she picked out a children’s book titled Bud Finds Her Gift. It’s about discovering one's special ability, and Bud's gift turned out to be observation—simply noticing things others missed. Watching her read that story reminded me how powerful observation really is.

I thought of my former colleague, Tim Harville, with whom I worked at Coregistics. Tim often walked the warehouse with new supervisors, teaching them to "see the operation"—to notice what looks good, what's out of place, and where waste or opportunity hides in plain sight. His goal wasn't to test them—it was to train their eyes. Observation, in that sense, is a key communication skill. You can't describe, explain, or improve what you haven't first seen clearly. 

Can Communication Be Taught? Absolutely.

I’ve seen it done.

At Frito-Lay, we invested in communication training for new managers—everything from eliminating filler words to using purposeful body language and structuring messages with intent. At Coca-Cola, Toastmasters chapters gave leaders a safe space to practice public speaking, storytelling, and feedback.

And beyond formal training, there's practice in the everyday moments—taking notes in meetings, volunteering to summarize a discussion, representing a project team, or offering to speak at a class or event. Every repetition builds comfort and clarity.

My own Center for Creative Leadership experience was the beginning of that practice for me. Decades later, I still catch myself needing to slow down, listen, and wait for the right moment. The lesson never stops.

Painting the Picture: When It Works and When It’s Missing

When communication works, credibility follows. Jeff Edwards didn’t have to compete for airtime; his credibility made his words count. When it's missing, even talented people like Forrest can struggle to influence or grow.

Both extremes teach the same lesson: communication isn't about more or less—it's about meaning. It's knowing when to speak, what to say, and how to connect it to the needs of others. 

Practical Ways to Build Communication Strength

• Listen to learn. Take notes, paraphrase what you've heard, and confirm understanding
• Translate technical into practical. Explain what data means for the business, not just what it shows.
• Observe before you act. Practice "seeing" your operation or process with fresh eyes.
• Simplify your writing. Clarity beats cleverness every time.
• Seek feedback. Ask trusted peers to tell you how your communication lands.
• Prepare with intent. Know your audience, outcome, and key message before you speak. 

Reflection Questions

• Where in my current role does communication make or break outcomes?
• When was the last time I adjusted how I communicate to fit my audience?
• Do I listen more than I speak—and what might I learn if I did?
• How can I model communication that builds understanding rather than winning airtime? 

Closing Thought

Technical skills and analytics may earn you a seat at the table, but communication determines whether your ideas move the organization forward.

In a world of AI, automation, and constant change, the ability to listen, observe, and translate context into action remains our most human—and most valuable—differentiator.