Certified in Transformation for Supply Chain (CTSC): Two Mandates, One Roadmap

Do not average the two mandates into a blended goal. That produces a case nobody owns and that fails the first budget cut.

1. Build a value tree from enterprise outcomes, not from the 41 initiatives. Name four to six outcomes with a baseline, a target, a date and a single accountable executive (e.g. OTIF 82% to 95%; inventory 78 to 60 days; SKU-enabled revenue; cost per unit).
2. Classify all 41 initiatives into value-protect (keep the lights on), value-create (moves an outcome), foundation (enables other value), and reject. Expect a large reject pile; say so explicitly, because an unfunded list is a hidden backlog that will reappear.
3. Split the US$18M. Show which portion is transformation-attributable with a counterfactual and which is ordinary productivity or volume effect. A board commitment is a constraint on the case, not evidence for it. If US$11M of the target has no initiative behind it, that gap must be visible now, not in year two.
4. Test priority by stress. Ask which mandate survives a 30% budget cut. That answer is the priority spine; the other mandate gets a funded subset, not a parallel program.
5. Respect the capacity constraint. Three of four IT FTEs are committed, so concurrency is a fiction. The roadmap must be sequenced, with named gates.

Recommendation: planning and IBP redesign first, warehouse automation gated behind it.

Reasoning:

• The automation case assumes stable, predictable throughput and a settled SKU and volume profile. At 82% OTIF and 78 days of inventory the operation is running on expedite and buffer, so the throughput assumption is not yet true. Configurable products also change the volume mix, which is exactly what a fixed layout is worst at absorbing.
• Automation is largely irreversible capital in a network whose shape is still in question. The planning redesign is reversible, cheaper and produces the forecast accuracy and replenishment discipline that any automation business case quietly depends on.
• The counter-argument is real: automation has a hard 19% IRR while planning benefits are soft and lag 18 months. That is an argument for converting the soft benefits into hard proxies, not for reversing the sequence. Commit to measured proxies: forecast accuracy at SKU-location, planner hours, expedite spend, and schedule adherence.
• Gates on automation: two consecutive quarters of forecast accuracy improvement and volume stability, plus confirmation of the network design, before capital release. If the gates fail, automation is not cancelled, it is re-scoped.

State plainly what this costs: the CFO's year-two number now depends on proxies, so negotiate a restated phasing rather than letting the gap surface as a miss.

A decision paper forces a choice; a status deck defers it. The paper should carry:

• One page of outcomes: baseline, target, date, owner, and the counterfactual used to attribute benefit.
• A benefits register with named line owners, hard versus soft classification, and the measurement method for each line. Unowned benefits do not get realized.
• The funded portfolio and the unfunded list, with the reason for each rejection. The unfunded list is the committee's real risk register.
• Sequencing logic and gates: dependency, capacity, benefit lag, and the specific evidence required to pass each gate.
• Explicit decisions requested, each phrased as a choose-between: fund planning phase 1 and gate automation, or fund automation and accept weaker outcome linkage. Never present a single option as a decision.
• A stop rule for each initiative: the observable condition under which it is paused or killed, agreed now while no one is defending sunk cost.
• Assumptions that could break the case (volume, lease terms, IT attrition), each with an owner and a review date.

The test: could a director who missed the meeting make the call from this paper alone?