The conference room fills at 9:00 AM for the monthly S&OP review. Commercial presents updated demand forecasts reflecting recent market trends. Manufacturing confirms capacity availability and highlights two equipment maintenance windows that will affect July production. Supply chain reconciles the numbers and proposes a consensus plan that balances demand against constraints. Finance validates that the plan aligns with revenue targets. Everyone agrees. The plan gets documented. The meeting adjourns.
By 3:00 PM that same afternoon, manufacturing has already built a separate production schedule that differs from what was agreed. Not dramatically, but enough that the batch sequence doesn’t quite match the S&OP plan. Commercial continues using their own forecast spreadsheet because the S&OP numbers don’t reflect the pipeline adjustments they discussed with leadership yesterday. Supply chain starts working from a modified inventory target because the one documented in S&OP doesn’t account for the distribution constraint they mentioned informally but didn’t escalate during the meeting.
Within 48 hours, the organization is operating from three different versions of the plan. Not because anyone rejected the S&OP output, but because the operational reality each function faces doesn’t align with the consensus view that emerged during the meeting.
S&OP meetings are designed to create cross-functional alignment. The process brings together the perspectives that matter, forces trade-off discussions, and produces a single version of the plan that everyone supposedly commits to executing. The theory is sound. The breakdown happens when commitment during the meeting and commitment after the meeting diverge.
Commercial agrees to the forecast knowing they haven’t included the upside scenario that leadership is privately expecting them to deliver. Manufacturing agrees to the capacity plan knowing they’ve built in assumptions about equipment reliability that are optimistic. Supply chain agrees to the inventory target knowing it requires procurement lead times that their suppliers rarely achieve.
Nobody is lying. Each function is agreeing to a plan they believe is achievable if the underlying assumptions hold. The problem is that those assumptions are fragile, and everyone in the room knows it. The commitment is conditional, but the conditions are rarely made explicit during the S&OP discussion.
Organizations interpret this as lack of accountability and respond by strengthening governance, adding review checkpoints, or implementing escalation procedures for deviations. These measures don’t address the core dynamic because the issue isn’t that people fail to follow through. It’s that the plan they agreed to doesn’t reflect the operational complexity they’re actually navigating.
Pharmaceutical demand forecasting operates under constraints that make precision difficult. Clinical trial results shift timelines. Regulatory approvals introduce uncertainty. Competitor actions change market dynamics. Patient populations fluctuate. Payer coverage decisions alter access. Each variable introduces volatility that accumulates into forecast ranges rather than point estimates.
Yet S&OP requires a single number. So commercial teams produce a forecast that represents their best estimate given current information, with the understanding that the number will change as new information emerges. Manufacturing takes that number and builds a capacity plan. Supply chain builds an inventory model. Finance builds a revenue projection. The entire planning system operates from a baseline everyone knows will not hold.
Biotech companies scaling commercial operations face this challenge acutely. The supply chain planning for biotech depends on demand visibility that doesn’t exist with confidence beyond the current quarter. Launch trajectories are estimated from limited analogous data. Uptake curves are projected from clinical endpoints that may not predict real-world utilization.
The S&OP meeting treats the forecast as settled. The operational teams treat it as directional. The gap between these two interpretations is where planning confidence erodes.
Manufacturing presents capacity in S&OP as if it were a stable quantity. The production schedule shows batch slots allocated across quarters. Beneath those numbers are assumptions about equipment uptime, changeover efficiency, yield rates, and quality hold durations that reflect theoretical performance rather than empirical patterns.
A manufacturing line rated for 40 batches per quarter operates at that level when everything works according to design. In practice, empirical performance runs closer to 35 batches because the variability that theory assumes away actually occurs.
S&OP uses the theoretical capacity number because adjusting it downward would require explaining which specific batches won’t be produced. That conversation is difficult to have in advance because you don’t know which equipment will fail or which batch will have a quality issue. So the plan uses the optimistic capacity model, and manufacturing builds in buffer through informal scheduling practices that create flexibility to absorb the variability everyone knows is coming.
The result is that the S&OP capacity plan and the actual production schedule are never quite the same. Manufacturing maintains both because the S&OP number represents the commitment while the working schedule represents the execution reality.
Pharmaceutical organizations develop informal coordination networks that operate parallel to formal S&OP processes. The demand planner and the production scheduler have a standing conversation where they reconcile what commercial forecasted against what manufacturing can actually produce. The procurement manager and the inventory analyst align on safety stock decisions that account for supplier reliability patterns not captured in the S&OP lead time assumptions.
These relationships enable operational execution by filling the gaps between what S&OP decides and what day-to-day reality requires. The demand planner knows which forecasted products are real commitments and which are aspirational. The production scheduler knows which batches have flexibility and which are locked due to customer commitments.
When someone in these informal networks leaves the organization, execution reliability often degrades before leadership understands why. The formal S&OP process continues functioning. Meetings happen. Plans get documented. But the operational translation from plan to execution loses fidelity because the knowledge of how to bridge the gap left with the person who was doing it.
The more productive question is whether the need for informal coordination reflects a poorly designed S&OP process or whether it reflects the inherent complexity of pharmaceutical operations that can’t be fully captured in monthly planning cycles.
S&OP meetings have a natural pressure toward consensus. Cross-functional leadership is in the room. The objective is alignment. Unresolved disagreement is uncomfortable and delays decision-making. These dynamics create incentive structures that favor reaching agreement even when the agreement requires glossing over complexity that will resurface during execution.
Commercial presents a forecast range but gets asked to commit to a single number for planning purposes. They pick the midpoint, which satisfies the meeting’s need for a decision while leaving unaddressed the question of how to respond if demand lands at the high or low end of the range. Manufacturing confirms capacity without surfacing the equipment reliability concerns that could affect actual throughput.
Each function provides the answer that enables the meeting to progress, knowing that the full operational story is more nuanced than what fits into the S&OP discussion format. The complexity gets managed through the post-meeting coordination that every experienced practitioner knows will be necessary.
This dynamic isn’t a failure of facilitation or meeting design. It reflects a fundamental tension between the need for decisiveness that planning requires and the acknowledgment of uncertainty that operational honesty demands.
The recognition that S&OP outputs will require operational adjustment doesn’t mean the planning process lacks value. The value isn’t in creating a plan that holds without modification. The value is in creating a baseline that enables intelligent adjustment when circumstances change.
A well-executed S&OP process produces cross-functional understanding of trade-offs, documents assumptions explicitly, and establishes decision frameworks that guide how to respond when variability occurs. The plan itself is an artifact. The alignment around how to interpret and adjust the plan is the operational asset.
Pharmaceutical companies sometimes resist this perspective because it feels like accepting planning failure. The alternative interpretation is that it reflects operational maturity about what planning can and cannot accomplish in environments where uncertainty is structural rather than incidental.
The S&OP meeting where everyone agrees and nothing changes isn’t a sign that the process failed. It’s a sign that the organization achieved consensus on a plan they all understand will need to evolve as execution unfolds. Good S&OP makes coordinated adaptation more likely without pretending to eliminate the need for adjustment entirely.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0fL6CApnORyc0hSR2R6Cu6?si=NY2TiugNR52s15QOUrNeXw
© 2025 Crivva - Hosted by Airy Hosting Managed Website Hosting.
