One supply chain across four countries, without dismantling the country organisations

The company was organised by country: each country had its own stock, its own planning and its own control. The strategy moved to an organisation by market segment, across national borders. That meant the supply chain, which until then had existed four times side by side, had to become one whole — without dismantling the country organisations, because they carry the customer relationship.

The logistics footprint was consolidated where possible: sites of different business units were brought together, with the service level as a hard lower limit.

Control of the production sites was centralised, but not the sites themselves. That distinction mattered: central orchestration does not have to mean that everything ends up in one place.

Stock had to come down while availability went up. That is a difficult combination, especially since the range comes largely from one dominant supplier whose lead times cannot be influenced. The gain lay in better forecasts and in shifting stock to the right place in the network.

On top of that, S&OP was set up, with a layered meeting structure: who decides what, over what horizon, and on the basis of which figures.

Not the design, but the country managers. They gave up autonomy and at first mainly saw what they were losing. This was resolved by demonstrating the benefit rather than claiming it, by agreeing KPIs they could steer on themselves, and by phasing the introduction so that each step could prove itself first.

That also meant staffing the central team with people who were credible in the countries. Without that, it would have become a staff department nobody listens to.

Because it shows that centralising and consolidating are not the same thing. What was centralised here was the control; what stayed were the sites and the country organisations. That choice made the difference between a transformation that landed and a reorganisation that would have met resistance.