Supply chain simulations fail when companies don't decide in advance what they'll do with the results. Speaker A says leadership must pre-agree on actions before running scenarios, or the output gets ignored. Speaker C notes simulations only help in genuinely complex situations, not simple ones, and warns against expecting a single perfect answer.
I've seen simulations used effectively to understand the impact of long lead components and supplier delays, but the value only came when leadership agreed upfront what actions to take if certain thresholds are crossed. So if we— if the leadership don't have that agreement, what if, what do we do, then these, these things mean nothing to the organization. So most of the organization, they don't end up with taking actions, they end up with only doing this planning without knowing what they should use it for. Yeah, it's a good one.
Thank you, Nanda. Peter, you wanted to share an example, or you had a point?
No, I wanted to actually touch on the point Noot raised, because I really like— like, simulation is different than calculation. And you can almost say if you're able to analyze a supply scenario by making a calculation, you don't need simulation. To me, simulation starts to add value if you drive it into the complexity. And that's also where I see the most challenging part of actually applying simulations and the decisions you can derive through simulation is that you need to start trusting whatever simulation of your network you, you make, whatever comes out of it as a scenario, how to act on it. And that's why I've often seen a mismatch of the expectation that simulation brings you the perfect single answer. But actually, right, you're not— you don't have the majority of truly trusting what was the simulation actually running. And let's stick to what we know and we don't follow through on actually what the scenarios is coming out of the simulation. That's what I typically have seen in several cases.
All right.
