SupplierWiki curates detailed articles to help suppliers win at retail.

Don't let Walmart Post-Audits catch you off guard in 2025. Join Allie and Bekah to learn best practices for preventing and disputing Post Audits.

Prepping for Walmart Audits

Post Audits are preventable and disputable! Join Allie and Bekah to learn how to best prepare for Walmart Post Audits.

Articles

EDI Business Central: Der Einstieg ohne Umwege

Wer als Lieferant, Hersteller oder Distributor mit Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central arbeitet, stößt früher oder später auf dieselbe Frage: Wie kommt EDI eigentlich in mein System? Business Central ist ein ERP-System für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen und deckt Finanzen, Lager, Einkauf und Verkauf ab. Elektronischer Datenaustausch mit Handelspartnern gehört serienmäßig nicht dazu. Genau hier setzt dieser Beitrag an: Was EDI in Business Central bedeutet, wie E-Invoicing über EDI funktioniert und wie eine Anbindung an Handelspartner ohne wachsenden internen Wartungsaufwand gelingt.

Kurz gesagt: EDI ist keine eingebaute Funktion von Business Central, sondern eine Ergänzung, die von außen angebunden wird.

EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) bezeichnet den automatisierten Austausch von Geschäftsdokumenten wie Bestellungen, Lieferavisen und Rechnungen direkt zwischen den Systemen zweier Handelspartner, ohne manuelle Eingabe. Business Central selbst bringt dafür keine native Übersetzungsfunktion mit. Damit ein eingehender Auftrag eines Einzelhändlers oder eine ausgehende Rechnung an einen Lieferanten korrekt verarbeitet werden kann, braucht es eine zusätzliche Komponente, die zwischen den unterschiedlichen Formaten der Handelspartner (zum Beispiel EDIFACT) und der internen Struktur von Business Central übersetzt.

Diese Komponente kann auf zwei Wegen bereitgestellt werden:

In beiden Fällen gilt: Ohne zusätzliche Software oder einen Dienstleister, der diese Übersetzung übernimmt, lässt sich EDI mit Business Central nicht betreiben. Die zentrale Entscheidung ist also nicht 

 diese Anbindung erfolgt, insbesondere mit Blick darauf, wer die Handelspartnerregeln pflegt, wenn sich Formate oder Anforderungen ändern.

EDI Cloudlösung Business Central: Add-on oder Managed Service?

Bei einer App aus dem Marketplace liegt die laufende Pflege der Mapping-Regeln meist beim eigenen Team. Bei einer EDI Cloudlösung für Business Central, die von einem spezialisierten Anbieter betrieben wird, übernimmt dieser Anbieter Einrichtung, Aktualisierung und Support der Anbindung, während Business Central selbst nur die bereits aufbereiteten Daten empfängt.

E-Invoicing EDI: Elektronische Rechnungsstellung mit Business Central

Ein Bereich, in dem diese Frage besonders sichtbar wird, ist die elektronische Rechnungsstellung. Seit dem 1. Januar 2025 müssen alle inländischen B2B-Unternehmen in Deutschland E-Rechnungen empfangen können; die Pflicht zur Ausstellung folgt gestaffelt ab 2027. Für Unternehmen, die bereits EDI-Rechnungen austauschen, ändert sich dadurch nicht der Kanal, wohl aber die Anforderung an das Format und an die korrekte Extraktion der steuerlich relevanten Daten.

In der Praxis zeigt sich ein wiederkehrendes Muster: Eingehende EDI-Belege treffen in unterschiedlichen Formaten ein, je nachdem, welches System der jeweilige Handelspartner nutzt. Damit Business Central diese Belege verarbeiten kann, müssen sie zunächst in ein einheitliches XML-Format konvertiert werden. Viele Unternehmen lösen das über zusätzliche Konvertierungssoftware, die zwischen den Handelspartner-Formaten und dem ERP vermittelt. Bei einem Volumen von mehreren Hunderttausend Belegen im Jahr und mehreren Dutzend Lieferantenanbindungen bedeutet das: jede neue Anbindung, jede Formatänderung und jede regulatorische Anpassung (etwa durch die deutsche E-Rechnungspflicht) muss in dieser Konvertierungsschicht separat gepflegt werden.

Das ist technisch lösbar, bindet aber kontinuierlich interne Kapazität, insbesondere wenn die Zahl der Handelspartner wächst oder sich Formatanforderungen ändern. Die Frage, die sich viele IT-Verantwortliche irgendwann stellen, ist deshalb weniger „Können wir das selbst bauen und pflegen?", sondern „Wie viel unserer Zeit soll dauerhaft in die Pflege von Formatregeln fließen, statt in Aufgaben, die unser Geschäft direkt voranbringen?"

EDI Dienstleister Business Central: Wie SPS Commerce die Anbindung an Handelspartner unterstützt

Genau an diesem Punkt setzt SPS Commerce an. Mit Fulfillment EDI für Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central übernimmt SPS die Übersetzung, Anreicherung und Standardisierung von Auftrags-, Versand- und Rechnungsdaten zwischen Ihren Handelspartnern und Ihrem Business-Central-System. Statt für jede Handelspartnerverbindung eigene Formatregeln aufzubauen und zu warten, nutzen Sie eine einzige Verbindung, die bereits auf die Anforderungen von tausenden Einzelhändlern, Lieferanten, Distributoren und 3PLs abgestimmt ist, einschließlich komplexer Auftragsabwicklungsmodelle wie Ship-to-DC, Ship-to-Store oder Drop-Shipping.

Als Microsoft-zertifizierter Partner seit 2004 hat SPS mehr als 5.000 Systemintegrationen in Microsoft-ERP-Umgebungen begleitet. Ein dediziertes Team von über 300 Microsoft-Spezialisten übernimmt dabei nicht nur die Einrichtung, sondern auch den laufenden Betrieb: von der Konfiguration der Geschäftsregeln über die Datenstandardisierung bis zum 24/7-Support, wenn sich Anforderungen ändern. Für den Bereich E-Invoicing kommt hinzu, dass SPS Commerce die gesetzlichen Anforderungen in über 50 Ländern im Blick behält, einschließlich der aktuellen Entwicklungen zur E-Rechnungspflicht in Deutschland, sodass neue Formatvorgaben nicht bei jedem Handelspartner einzeln nachgepflegt werden müssen.

Für Unternehmen, die Business Central als führendes System nutzen, bedeutet das: Die Anzahl der Lieferanten- und Retaileranbindungen kann wachsen, ohne dass die interne Mapping- und Wartungsarbeit im gleichen Maß mitwächst.

Häufig gestellte Fragen zu EDI und Business Central

Was bedeutet EDI im Zusammenhang mit der Rechnungsstellung?
⁠

Im Rechnungskontext bezeichnet EDI den Austausch von Rechnungsdaten in einem strukturierten, standardisierten Format direkt zwischen den Systemen zweier Handelspartner, anstelle einer papierbasierten oder als PDF versendeten Rechnung. Die Rechnungsdaten werden dabei automatisch aus dem ERP-System des Rechnungsstellers erzeugt, in das vereinbarte Format übersetzt und direkt in das System des Empfängers eingespielt, etwa in Business Central. Das reduziert manuelle Erfassung und ist zugleich die Grundlage dafür, dass EDI-Rechnungen auch die aktuellen gesetzlichen Anforderungen an elektronische Rechnungen erfüllen können, sofern die notwendigen Pflichtangaben korrekt abgebildet werden.

Was ist der Unterschied zwischen EDI und einer API?


EDI und APIs dienen beide dem Datenaustausch zwischen Systemen, unterscheiden sich aber in Aufbau und Einsatzzweck. EDI basiert auf feststehenden, oft branchenweit genormten Nachrichtenformaten (etwa EDIFACT) und eignet sich besonders für wiederkehrende, standardisierte Dokumente wie Bestellungen oder Rechnungen im Handelspartnernetzwerk. APIs ermöglichen einen flexibleren, meist direkteren Datenaustausch, erfordern aber in der Regel eine individuelle Anbindung je Partner. In der Praxis werden beide Ansätze häufig kombiniert.

Brauche ich für EDI in Business Central zusätzliche Software?


Ja. Business Central bringt keine eingebaute EDI-Funktion mit. Für den Austausch mit Handelspartnern ist entweder eine App aus dem Microsoft-Marketplace oder eine webbasierte Lösung eines spezialisierten Anbieters wie SPS Commerce notwendig, die die Formatübersetzung und die laufende Pflege der Handelspartnerregeln übernimmt.

EDI in Business Central einzuführen, bedeutet nicht, ein komplett neues System zu lernen. Es bedeutet, die Übersetzungsebene zwischen Ihren Handelspartnern und Ihrem ERP so aufzusetzen, dass sie mit wachsender Anbindungszahl nicht zum internen Dauerprojekt wird. Wenn Sie herausfinden möchten, wie eine EDI- und E-Invoicing-Anbindung für Ihr Business-Central-System konkret aussehen könnte, sprechen Sie mit dem 

E-Invoicing in The Netherlands: Everything You Need to Know

: the separate Dutch bill on cross-border e-invoicing and digital reporting is expected in summer 2027, with an internet consultation planned for Q4 2026. The EU's effective date for cross-border B2B e-invoicing/digital reporting remains 1 July 2030; single VAT registration measures are expected to phase in from 2027 to 2029.

, it became clear that The Netherlands—and all other countries in the EU—had to make business-to-government (B2G) e-invoicing mandatory. For The Netherlands, that deadline has well passed, and today, e-invoicing is gaining momentum—even in the B2B space!

In The Netherlands, all public and contracting government authorities must be able to receive e-invoices. The implementation of e-invoicing has been executed by the adoption of the Peppol framework for setting up an exchange infrastructure. Currently, all Dutch government agencies have direct or indirect connections to the Peppol infrastructure. This is the so-called DIGIPOORT, used for the reception of electronic invoices.

From a global point of view, it’s clear that e-invoicing is here to stay, and, especially in The Netherlands, it’s taking over as the preferred invoice exchange method – regardless of industry.

E-invoicing is here to stay in today’s B2G and B2B environment and we expect it to only continue to grow in The Netherlands. But let’s start at the beginning….

E-invoicing was introduced in The Netherlands on January 1st, 2011. From that moment on, central government agencies were legally required to be able to 

, the central hub where message traffic for the government is handled.

 e-invoices was extended to central government suppliers on January 1st, 2017. It wasn’t until August 2019, however, that this was 

; the central government wanted to give entrepreneurs time to prepare for the new way of invoicing.

, the e-invoicing obligation was further extended to all Dutch sub-central governments (in addition to central governments), government organizations, and other contracting authorities. This meant that these public authorities also had to be able to 

 e-invoices from their suppliers according to the European standard format.

But this didn’t mean that all Dutch government agencies had fully switched to e-invoicing by April 2019. That’s because their suppliers were not legally required to 

 e-invoices—public authorities only had to be capable of receiving and processing e-invoices should any number of their suppliers choose to utilize it. Not surprisingly, the majority of suppliers opted to stick to their usual way of doing business. They were reluctant to switch to e-invoicing because they were more comfortable sending the paper invoices or scanned PDFs that they had been creating for years. In practice, this situation still occurs regularly.

All of this, combined with the fact that the Dutch central government—until August 2019—did not strictly monitor or enforce e-invoicing, meant that e-invoicing didn’t really take off in The Netherlands until almost 10 years from when it was first introduced back in 2011.

That brings us to today. The Netherlands is finally at the point in which enough public and private sector organizations have adopted e-invoicing for its benefits to be more widely addressed within the business community. Despite the lack of mandate at the state level for suppliers to 

 e-invoices, we’re starting to see that more and more public authorities are encouraging their suppliers to make the switch by communicating the “why” behind something that otherwise seems to be nothing more than an inconvenience. And now, with the help of onboarding services from service providers like SPS Commerce, the transition to e-invoicing can be quite simple for suppliers.

If you’re a supplier, there are various ways in which you can send e-invoices, so the first step is to determine which solution is right for you based on your specific needs. To figure this out, you can start by calculating the number of invoices you send each month or each year along with the number of customers you have. From there, you should also evaluate the capabilities of your ICT infrastructure. If you’re a buyer, the initial “getting started” process is virtually the same, only the other way around, of course.

If you’re getting started with B2G e-invoicing in The Netherlands, the Dutch government is connected to the secure Peppol network. That being said, it’s absolutely critical to choose a service provider that acts as a Peppol Access Point (AP), such as SPS Commerce. In doing so, you’ll be able to send e-invoices to all connected institutions in The Netherlands and abroad, including private organizations, with one simple connection. The Peppol network is also increasingly being used in the B2B space, so choosing a service provider that serves as an AP is a smart choice regardless.

You can send invoices via Peppol in the following ways:  

Different governments and municipalities offer different options. SPS Commerce is a service provider to the central government, the Municipality of Amsterdam and the Municipality of Rotterdam, among others.

Several standards are used for e-invoicing in The Netherlands. In sum, standards describe the rules for the specific formatting of electronic messages (like invoices and purchase orders). By standardizing the structure of the messages, diverse systems are able to understand the data and process it accordingly.

 Used by the Dutch government for the procurement of goods and services, except for the hiring of personnel (based on the international UBL standard)

 Used for e-invoices within the central government

 Ensures cross-border interoperability for those utilizing the Peppol network

 An additional specification to the mandatory European standard (EN 16931) that is only applicable in The Netherlands and describes how e-invoicing with the government works (can also be used in B2B instances)

The above standards are mainly, but not exclusively, used by the government. If you’re interested in learning more about the various standards in use for specific industries and regions, here’s a good overview.

Besides those listed above, it’s also important that we mention the 

. It’s an internationally recognized standard on information security, and up-to-date certification is now mandatory for all service providers in The Netherlands that wish to serve as a Peppol Access Point. So, include this as an important point while evaluating service providers.

The Future of E-Invoicing & E-Procurement

As more and more Dutch public authorities begin to double down on their e-invoicing requirements, an increasing number of large organizations, like Rabobank, PostNL, and KPN, are beginning to embrace the switch. Today, it is no longer a question of 

 you will send e-invoices in the future, but rather a question of 

As a matter of fact, we’re also starting to see that some countries have already begun to enforce B2B e-invoicing, like

France. This hasn’t happened in The Netherlands yet, but judging from how things are moving along, we can assume it’s a highly likely possibility.

And as many organizations have already realized, the logical digitalization step that follows the implementation of e-invoicing is e-procurement. Many businesses are already on their way to a fully automated procure-to-pay process, and it’s only a matter of time before sending all documents electronically becomes the norm—it won’t stop at e-invoicing.

To conclude, as many organizations have already noticed, the logical digitization step that follows the implementation of e-invoicing is 

. Many companies are already moving towards a fully automated purchase-to-pay process, and it is only a matter of time before sending all documents electronically becomes the standard.

Keep an eye out for changing regulations in The Netherlands!

E-Invoicing in Belgium

E-Invoicing in Belgium - SPS Commerce

The Belgian Council of Ministers approved a preliminary bill 

, complementing the structured e-invoicing mandate in effect since 1 January 2026. The bill has been submitted to the Data Protection Authority and the Council of State for advice. 

 now that structured e-invoicing is mandatory for most domestic B2B transactions from 1 January 2026: corrective documents must follow the structured e-invoice logic where the mandate applies, the evidentiary role of the structured e-invoice for VAT deduction is clarified (preserving the fallback rule for technical inability to receive), and VAT rounding on structured e-invoices is aligned with the European e-invoicing standard.  

, replacing FPS Policy and Support (BOSA), becoming the central point of contact for e-invoicing and e-reporting to streamline decision-making and simplify administrative processes during the transition. 

After some delays, the Peppol e-invoicing system is being put in place in Belgium for all transactions, including B2B, in January 2026. Let’s zoom on the Belgian e-invoicing regulations.

As of 2022, the Flemish government has reached their e-invoicing goals. This means that government entities are required to utilize e-invoicing under the

. Since 2017, the Flemish government has required e-invoices from all of its suppliers.

On January 31, 2025, an agreement was reached on the formation of a new Belgian federal government. The coalition agreement includes significant tax policy changes aimed at promoting entrepreneurship and competitiveness. A key VAT measure in the agreement is the introduction of near real-time reporting, which is scheduled to begin in 2028. This initiative, designed to combat VAT fraud, will complement the mandatory e-invoicing requirement that will come into effect on January 1, 2026.

If you do not have the appropriate software yet, the Belgian tax authorities have shared a list of potential software solutions that can help you. There are various types of software available: software that can only send e-invoices, software that can send and receive e-invoices, and software that can also immediately process the e-invoices in your accounting system. List of compliant software applications 

Business-to-government e-invoicing is mandatory since March 1, 2024, except for contracts under the threshold of 3,000 euros (subject to exception). All public authorities must be able to receive e-invoices and select public authority suppliers are required to send their invoices in the specified electronic format (

Vlaanderen, the official gateway for the Flemish government, indicated that the Flemish government’s approach is a commitment to fully digital processing of public procurement and related processes: end-to-end 

. Since 2015, the Flemish government has ruled that all businesses must be able to receive e-invoices.

The Introduction of B2B E-Invoicing in Belgium

On September 29, 2023, then-Finance Minister Vincent Van Peteghem reached an agreement in the Council of Ministers on the mandatory introduction of digital invoicing (e-invoicing) between businesses starting 

. While this requirement already applied to invoices provided to the government, Minister Van Peteghem ensured that as of January 1, 2026, structured electronic invoices would also become the standard for transactions between taxable companies.

In a word, Belgian VAT-registered businesses are required to exchange structured e-invoices directly between their systems through a regulated standard. Belgium chose the European EN 16931 standard, as for B2G e-invoices, and relies on the Peppol network to achieve this transition.

In July 2024, the Belgian Federal Public Service Finance published 

. According to it, the obligation for structured electronic invoicing will almost always apply to transactions between two Belgian companies subject to VAT.

There is no obligation to send structured electronic invoices for:

There is no obligation to be able to receive structured electronic invoices for:

 for this new development. When a company joins this network, it automatically connects with all other participants in this network. This network is already in use in many other EU member states.

2026 will be a year of e-invoicing implementation in Europe, Belgium is no exception, as we have to prepare for the next big step of 2030 with ViDA.

To make sure you remain compliant with all international regulations, you have to chose a provider that can support you across all countries. SPS Commerce offers comprehensive solutions to help you stay ahead of all regulatory changes. 

 to know more about our e-invoicing offerings.

Supplier Operational Capacity, Not Competitors, Is Capping Growth 

When a supplier stalls out on growth, the instinct is to look outward, like a competitor undercutting a bid or a retailer shifting its buy. But for most suppliers and brands, the real ceiling sits closer to home: systems and processes built for a smaller version of the business that are still running the show after the business outgrew them. 

Order volume outpaces systems more often than it outpaces demand.

 Retailers keep adding requirements and order volume keeps climbing. But the supplier's internal processing, onboarding steps, order execution workflow, and exposure to chargebacks stays sized for last year's business.  

Retailers rarely stop buying. The operation underneath just can't absorb what's being asked of it. 

Why Do Suppliers Hit a Growth Ceiling Before They Hit a Demand Ceiling?

Retailers rarely turn away a supplier who can perform. What they do turn away is risk: missed ship windows, inconsistent data, and compliance gaps that turn into fines. A supplier whose operations lag behind its order volume looks, from the retailer's side, exactly like a supplier who can't handle more business, even when demand is there and growing. 

That distinction matters because it changes where a supplier should be looking for the fix. Adding sales headcount or chasing new retail relationships doesn't help if the order execution behind the scenes is already stretched. The fix lives in operations, not in the sales pipeline. 

Three operational limits show up again and again in supplier growth stories: how fast a supplier can onboard new retailers, how well its order execution holds up under volume, and how exposed it is to chargebacks along the way. 

Supplier Onboarding Speed With New Retailers

Every new retailer relationship comes with its own requirements: labeling standards, shipping windows, invoicing rules, electronic data interchange (EDI) formats, and more. When onboarding runs on manual setup and one-off spreadsheets, each new relationship takes weeks the supplier doesn't have. A retailer ready to place a first order doesn't wait for a supplier to catch up. 

Order Execution Capacity for Scaling Order Volume

Order execution is where a growing order count meets a process built for a smaller one. Purchase orders that once flowed through one or two channels now arrive through direct-to-store, distribution center, dropship, and marketplace paths at once. Without a consolidated way to see and act on all of it, execution slows exactly when speed matters most. 

, or retailer-issued deductions for compliance misses like late shipments, mislabeled cartons, or short orders, scale with volume, not intent. A supplier can be executing in good faith and still see chargebacks climb simply because there are more orders, more retailers, and more chances for a data or timing gap to slip through. Left unmanaged, that exposure eats the margin gained from the additional volume. 

How Does Chargeback Exposure Compound the Capacity Problem?

Chargeback exposure costs more than money; it eats the time teams need to prepare for what's next. Supplier teams that spend their week disputing deductions and chasing down documentation have less time to prepare for the next retailer or the next volume increase. The operational drag compounds: More orders create more chargeback risk, more chargeback risk consumes the staff time needed to scale onboarding and execution, and the growth ceiling gets lower instead of higher. 

This is why treating chargebacks as a finance team cleanup problem understates the issue. Chargeback exposure is a growth constraint as much as a revenue one. 

What Happens When Suppliers Fix Capacity Instead of Chasing More Demand?

 surveyed 170 suppliers on what changed after they addressed operational capacity directly, rather than treating growth as a demand problem alone. The results point to execution, not headcount, as the lever that moved: 

The pattern across all four findings is the same.

 Suppliers didn't add staff to keep pace. They ran the onboarding, order execution, and chargeback-management work on infrastructure sized for the volume they already had, rather than the volume they had when the process was first set up. 

For a supplier or brand leader whose order volume already outpaces their systems, that's the case for network-powered execution over adding more people to a process that wasn't built to scale. The retail supplier network already understands onboarding requirements, order formats, and compliance rules across thousands of prior relationships, so a new connection doesn't start from zero, and execution doesn't slow down every time volume goes up. 

What does "operational capacity" mean for a supplier?

Operational capacity is how much order volume, how many retailers, and how much compliance complexity a supplier's onboarding, order execution, and deduction-management processes can absorb without breaking down. It's distinct from demand. A supplier can have plenty of demand and still be capped by capacity if the underlying processes can't keep up. 

How can a supplier tell if operations, not demand, are capping growth?

Common signals include onboarding new retailers taking weeks or months instead of days, order execution slowing as volume increases across channels, and chargebacks climbing in step with order count rather than with actual compliance misses. If demand is present but growth still lags, the constraint is usually operational. 

What's the fastest way to expand operational capacity without adding headcount?

Suppliers that scale capacity without adding headcount typically standardize onboarding so it doesn't start from scratch with each new retailer, consolidate order execution across channels onto one operating view, and manage chargeback exposure proactively instead of disputing deductions after the fact. 

See What Suppliers Gained by Fixing Capacity, Not Headcount

 and the independently conducted TEI Impact Study both point to the same conclusion: Suppliers that address operational capacity directly see faster onboarding, steadier execution, and stronger confidence in their ability to grow. Read the 

Not ready for that conversation yet? The Supply Chain Source has more on scaling supplier operations at 

Why Demand Forecasting Accuracy Starts Before the Forecast Runs 

What's Actually Causing Poor Forecast Accuracy in Retail? 

The instinct is to blame the model. A retailer's forecast misses, and the response is almost always the same: Buy a better algorithm, hire another data scientist, add more external signals. Meanwhile the miss rate barely moves. 

Here's the harder truth. Inventory distortion, the combined cost of stockouts and overstocks, cost the global retail industry $1.73 trillion in 2025, according to 

. Supply chain disruption was the single largest contributor, responsible for $301 billion of that figure on its own. This is a structural problem, and it sits upstream of where most retailers are looking. 

The forecast is only as good as what feeds it. If a supplier confirms a purchase order (PO) late, ships early or short, or sends an inaccurate advance shipping notice (ASN), the retailer's system of record is wrong before the forecast model ever touches the data. No amount of algorithmic sophistication fixes a training set that was corrupted at the source. 

How Does One Late ASN Turn Into a Bad Forecast? 

A supplier ships an order without sending an accurate ASN, or sends one with the wrong item count. The receiving team at the distribution center can't match what physically arrived against what the system expected, so the discrepancy sits unresolved. That unresolved discrepancy distorts the perpetual inventory count. Now the system thinks it has more (or less) of an item than it actually does. 

From there, two things happen, and neither is good. Either the system shows a phantom in-stock position while the shelf is empty, or it triggers unnecessary safety stock and expedited freight to cover a shortage that doesn't exist. Either way, the demand signal for that SKU is now wrong. And that wrong signal becomes training data for next month's forecast. 

Multiply that across a supplier base of any real size. Every late confirmation, every receiving discrepancy, every unconfirmed shipment stacks on the last. By the time next month's forecast runs, it was never working with real numbers to begin with. 

(Image)

Target Canada's 2015 collapse is the most visible example of this failure mode playing out at scale, even if the technology has moved on since. Target Canada launched with a new inventory system that the internal teams didn't fully understand, and no historical sales data to check it against. Product data accuracy across roughly 75,000 items was compromised from the start, with dimensions, units, and currencies entered inconsistently by newly hired staff working against an unrealistic timeline. 

The forecasting system had nothing reliable to learn from. Distribution centers overflowed with product that had nowhere to go, while store shelves sat empty. Reporting on the collapse later found that some inventory analysts had even disabled auto-replenishment alerts to keep their in-stock percentages looking acceptable on paper, which only masked the problem further. The forecast wasn't the failure. The data feeding it was broken long before any model ran. 

Doesn't AI-Driven Forecasting Fix This? 

It's a fair question, and the honest answer is that AI-driven forecasting makes the execution-data problem more urgent, not less. 

McKinsey's research on demand-sensing and machine learning forecasting found that companies using these methods achieved roughly 90% forecast accuracy with a three-month lag, compared with around 60% for manual forecasting. That's a real gain. But it depends entirely on feeding the model clean, connected external data, things like point-of-sale signals and confirmed stock-out events. A supplier data vacuum starves that exact input. An AI model inherits whatever corruption is already in the pipeline, and it inherits it faster and at greater scale than a human planner would have. 

Nike's experience with its i2 demand-planning system in 2000 makes the same point from a different angle. The $400 million implementation produced forecasts so far off that Nike overbought roughly $90 million of slow-selling shoes while shorting popular models by $80 million to $100 million. Part of the failure was that the system couldn't communicate with Nike's existing data sources, and much of the underlying data was still entered by hand. A sophisticated model, fed on broken inputs, still produces broken output. That lesson has aged well into the AI era. 

What Does Fixing Execution at the Source Actually Return? 

This is where the case stops being theoretical. 

, commissioned by SPS Commerce and published in January 2026, interviewed 10 decision-makers across seven retail, grocery, and distribution organizations. For a composite organization with $3.5 billion in annual revenue and more than 1,000 vendors, Forrester found: 

The stockout number gets the attention, but the mechanism behind it is what makes it repeatable. Interviewees described gaining earlier visibility into order fulfillment issues, using vendor performance data to hold suppliers accountable for on-time, in-full (OTIF) delivery, and catching inventory gaps before they became empty shelves. One interviewee, a senior manager of supplier operations at an industrial distributor, said the improved visibility helped their organization fine-tune ordering patterns and demand planning, pushing their annual OTIF performance across vendors to nearly 85%. 

The productivity and receiving numbers aren't side benefits. They're the mechanism. Better PO management and cleaner receiving data are what stop the corruption chain before it reaches the forecast. 

Retailers Already Know This, Even Without Calling It a Data Problem 

Walmart's OTIF program is the clearest evidence that the industry has already reached this conclusion, even if it rarely gets framed as a forecasting fix. Walmart tightened its OTIF standard to 98% in September 2020, explicitly tying the change to keeping shelves stocked and improving product availability for customers. The requirement proved difficult enough in practice that Walmart recalibrated in 2024 to 90% on-time and 95% in-full for prepaid suppliers. 

Whatever the exact threshold, the logic is the same one this article has been building toward: in-stock performance depends on supplier execution discipline, not just on how good the buyer's forecasting tool is. Walmart built an entire compliance program around that premise. Most retailers just haven't connected it back to their own forecast-accuracy complaints yet. Retailers who've formalized this connection, through 

, have seen real revenue gains: Research on OTIF improvements shows that even a five-point gain can generate tens of millions of dollars for a mid-size retailer. 

Is Your Supplier Data Trustworthy Enough for Any Forecasting Tool to Work? 

That's the real question, and it's a different one than "which forecasting tool should we evaluate next." A new model, however capable, still runs on the same execution data your current one does. If that data is fragmented, late, or unconfirmed, the new tool inherits the old problem. 

SPS Commerce doesn't run the forecast. What the SPS network does is align and connect the execution data, POs, ASNs, receiving confirmations, and vendor performance history, that any forecasting system depends on to be trustworthy in the first place. Forrester's independent analysis quantified what fixing that layer is worth: a 5% stockout reduction, $15 million in incremental revenue over three years, and a 360% ROI with payback in under six months. 

, including the assumptions and sensitivity analysis, and share it with your finance team. 

For a closer look at how execution gaps specifically undercut AI-driven buying decisions, see

Why do retail demand forecasts keep missing even after investing in better models?  

Usually because the problem was never the model. Late ASNs, unconfirmed POs, and receiving discrepancies corrupt the data before a forecast ever runs, so a smarter algorithm just processes bad inputs faster. 

What is the connection between supplier execution and forecast accuracy?  

A late or inaccurate ASN distorts receiving data and perpetual inventory counts. Those distortions become the demand history a forecasting model trains on, so accuracy erodes even when the model itself is fine. 

Does AI-driven forecasting solve the supplier data problem?  

Not on its own. McKinsey found AI forecasting can reach roughly 90% accuracy against 60% for manual methods, but only with clean, connected input data. Feed it a fragmented supplier pipeline and it inherits the same corruption, often faster than a human planner would have caught it. 

What financial return comes from fixing supplier execution data?  

 put a number on it: a composite organization saw a 5% stockout reduction worth $15 million in incremental revenue over three years, and a 360% overall ROI. 

Chain Reaction Newsletter Archive

 newsletters archive to explore past editions, with the newest issue listed first. Each edition highlights the latest retail, supply chain, CPG, and AI insights as well as news from 

Welcome to the July edition of Chain Reaction, your source for staying ahead of the news and insights shaping modern supply chains. 

Supply chain volatility is not new. But the pace of disruption in 2026 has made reactive operations genuinely unsustainable. Tariff policy has shifted repeatedly across major trading relationships, port volumes are hitting record highs as brands pull shipments forward to stay ahead of the next change, and the average retail order now changes six times before it ships. The organizations absorbing this without breaking are not the ones with the most sophisticated tools. They are the ones that built clean, connected foundations before the disruption arrived and are now using AI to move faster on top of those foundations. 

The industry's message on volatility is hardening into something practical: move from reactive to predictive, or keep paying the price. 

, supply chain disruptions cost $1.5M per day on average for companies that are not watching until something breaks. The shift procurement teams are making is from periodic audits to real-time risk signal monitoring — catch the exposure early, not after the damage is done. 

Retailers are being pushed in the same direction. 

 shows that agility and resilience are no longer separate goals. The organizations outperforming are the ones acting on shared data quickly, adjusting assortments, and keeping supplier alignment intact rather than chasing problems after they surface. 

Meanwhile, the macro backdrop keeps moving. 

 captures how frequently landed cost assumptions have been upended across Canada, Mexico, China, and the EU. And 

 as retailers and brands front-load shipments to get ahead of the next potential shift. Peak season arrived early this year, whether teams were ready or not. 

From inside hundreds of thousands of trading relationships, the pattern SPS Commerce sees is consistent: the teams navigating this environment with the least disruption are the ones whose data was structured enough to act on when things moved. For CPG brands, that means using AI demand forecasting to model tariff exposure and protect margins before a policy shift forces a reaction. 

 breaks down what separates the brands getting results from those still reacting after the fact: a clean, connected picture of landed cost, sell-through signals, and supplier capacity before the model is asked to reason about risk. 

Volatility is not just a macro story, either. SPS Commerce data shows order changes have doubled year over year, with 1 in 5 orders now coming back with acknowledgement changes. 

, drawn from a session with Sprouts Farmers Market and Sunkist Growers, shows what proactive coordination looks like in practice: weekly data-driven conversations, scenario planning, and onboarding practices that align on item data from day one. For midmarket retailers, promotional stockouts remain one of the most visible and costly places volatility shows up, and the root cause traces back to supplier data accuracy problems that existed weeks before launch, not the demand planning failures that get blamed in post-mortems. 

For teams looking to stay current as conditions keep shifting, 

, the evolution of SupplierWiki, now offers more than 2,800 resources across every part of the trading ecosystem, an AI retail tool built on official industry rules for instant compliance and routing answers, and Expert Exchange, a peer community of 60,000 members where practitioners share what actually works in the field. In a volatile environment, fast access to reliable answers is its own form of resilience. 

This month's newsletter has been all about what it takes to survive volatility — and if this month's theme resonated, we want to know where you actually stand. We're sending a short survey focused on AI readiness and data foundation: the bedrock that determines whether your team can respond to disruption or just absorb it. The questions cover data quality, system connectivity, and where your organization is in its AI journey right now. 

We'll surface the results in August's newsletter, the same way we did with last month's AI usage findings. The more responses we get, the sharper the picture — and the more useful it will be to everyone in the network. Take a few minutes and tell us where things really stand. 

The events and webinars below are ideal places to connect with SPS and continue the conversation with our team. Are you attending any of the below? We'd love to connect.  

_________________________________________________________________________________

Welcome to the June edition of Chain Reaction, your source for staying ahead of the news and insights shaping modern supply chains. 

Growing your business with AI feels like a no-brainer. AI tools allow us to stay agile, focused, and increase our productivity more than we’ve ever seen. The most important piece, though, is building a solid foundation for your tech stack and ensuring you know what specific agentic tools are built to do, and what they’re not intended for. Ensure your bedrock is solid and set your business up for real growth. 

The industry's message on AI is getting sharper: it doesn't fix broken foundations, it amplifies them. As 

, companies deploying AI on top of duplicate supplier records and siloed inventory data aren't fixing those problems; they're accelerating them. The prescription is simple: fix the foundation first, then layer AI on top. 

The Q1 earnings season showed what that divide looks like in practice. 

 each reported meaningful returns from AI because their investments were built on structured data. Starbucks told the opposite story, 

 because employees had to manually verify every automated count, doubling the work instead of cutting it. 

The race to deploy is accelerating regardless. Amazon is now licensing its Alexa for Shopping technology as an 

, suppliers without clean, connected product data risk going invisible before the sale even starts. 

From inside hundreds of thousands of trading partner relationships, the view is consistent: data quality is where AI investments succeed or stall.

The supply chain teams getting real results from AI aren't starting with the most sophisticated tools. They're starting with clean data. Our guide on 

 shows how these agents work best as high-volume task runners using guardrails. They are effective only when the data underneath them is structured and trustworthy. 

That's especially true when breaking into a new channel. 

 means starting without historical sell-through data, which makes demand planning models unreliable by default. The result, when the foundation isn't there, is a chain of bad decisions: wrong replenishment, missed compliance requirements, and deductions that were entirely preventable. 

 not through heroic effort, but through accurate EDI, automated validation, and visibility from order to payment. Most deductions come from data gaps, not bad intent. 

. When specs, attributes, and compliance docs live in disconnected spreadsheets, no AI tool can reason accurately about that inventory. The answer isn't a better model. It's better data at the source. 

Articles

SupplierWiki curates detailed articles to help suppliers win at retail.

Prepping for Walmart Audits

Overview

Articles