Supply Chain Plenary Stage

Day1, 14 April




09:00 -10:40

BLOCK 1  -  WAREHOUSE & INTRALOGISTICS AUTOMATION

09:00 - 09:30

PANEL

 Automation demand accelerates, yet warehouse readiness still lags behind

  • Exploring how throughput pressure, labour constraints and brownfield realities shape warehouse automation ambition.
  • Highlighting where mixed-mode operations, exception concentration and uneven standard work undermine scalable automation outcomes.
  • Connecting process discipline, safety routines and exception ownership into one readiness frame.

09:30 - 09:50


Automation performance depends on data stability and exception discipline

  • Exploring which operational data inputs automation relies on during daily warehouse execution.
  • Highlighting how weak task integrity, inventory accuracy and unclear exception ownership degrade automation outcomes at scale.
  • Anchoring identifiers, event definitions and data-quality rules into one shared reference layer, ensuring decisions move faster across partners under pressure.

 09:50 - 10:10

Automation reshapes warehouse work faster than operating models adapt

  • Exploring how mixed manual and automated operations change daily work, supervision and decision-making on the warehouse floor.
  • Highlighting where safety routines, role clarity and training lag create friction as automation expands beyond pilot areas.
  • Integrating workforce design, safety discipline and exception ownership into one operating model.

 10:10 - 10:40

PANEL

Automation risk concentrates where peaks, exceptions and people collide

  • Exploring how automated warehouse systems behave under peak volumes when assumptions break and manual intervention increases.
  • Highlighting where supervisors and shift leaders absorb risk through workarounds when systems cannot cope with volatility.
  • Reframing automation ownership around clear escalation rules, workload thresholds and decision rights, thereby reducing personal risk concentration.


 10:40 - 11:00

Coffee Break

 11:00 - 13:00

BLOCK 2  -  PLANNING, INTEGRATION & DECISION CONTROL

11:00 - 11.30

PANEL

Decision speed increases while authority and escalation remain misaligned

  • Exploring how planning signals and alerts multiply across organisations without corresponding clarity on who decides and when.
  • Highlighting where escalation paths stall because authority, incentives and accountability are split across functions and partners.
  • Aligning decision rights, escalation thresholds and execution ownership.

11:30 - 11:50

 Shared data standards determine whether cross-partner decisions are possible

  • Exploring which identifiers, event definitions and data elements must be shared for partners to act on the same planning signals.
  • Highlighting how inconsistent data definitions force manual reconciliation and slow decisions across organisational boundaries.
  • Anchoring identifiers, event definitions and data-quality rules into one shared reference layer, ensuring decisions move faster across partners under pressure.

11:50 - 12:10

Sequencing planning and network change when transformation bandwidth is limited

  • Exploring how planning upgrades, network redesign and system changes compete for the same organisational capacity.
  • Highlighting where parallel initiatives overload teams, dilute ownership and stall measurable progress.
  • Structuring change into a clear order of moves across planning, network and execution layers, reducing transformation fatigue and rework.

 12:10 - 12:30

Execution control fails where escalation and authority are fragmented

  • Exploring how execution decisions stall at organisational and cross-partner handoffs when authority is unclear.
  • Highlighting where governance gaps and uneven partner readiness force manual escalation and delay action.
  • Consolidating escalation rules, decision rights and exception ownership into one execution framework, enabling faster response under pressure.

 12:30 - 13:00

PANEL

Decision latency persists where integration maturity varies across the network

  • Exploring how uneven system maturity across partners forces decisions to slow down to the weakest link.
  • Highlighting how local workarounds emerge when integration gaps make formal decision paths impractical in daily operations.
  • Aligning minimum integration standards, escalation thresholds and decision timing, stabilising action even when partner readiness differs.

13:00 - 14:00

Lunch

 14:00 -18:00

BLOCK 3  -  EXECUTION UNDER VOLATILITY & OWNERSHIP

14:00 - 14:30

PANEL

 Volatility concentrates where warehouses, docks and carriers repeatedly intersect

  • Exploring how frequent handoffs and tight replenishment cycles amplify disruption when conditions change unexpectedly.
  • Highlighting where queueing, missed appointments and informal coordination absorb volatility outside formal systems.
  • Integrating handoff rules, time buffers and escalation ownership into one execution rhythm, absorbing disruption before service degrades.

    14:30 - 14:50

Execution backbones resist change when disruption demands immediate response

  • Exploring how core execution systems are designed for stability rather than rapid reprioritisation during disruption.
  • Highlighting where manual overrides and parallel processes emerge because system change cycles cannot match operational pressure.
  • Balancing core-system stability, controlled override rules and escalation timing into one response model, limiting ad-hoc intervention.

      14:50 - 15:10

Throughput erodes when waiting time becomes the default capacity buffer

  • Exploring how queues and appointment delays silently absorb volatility across daily warehouse and transport handoffs.
  • Highlighting where waiting replaces planning because slot discipline and prioritisation break under pressure.
  • Reconfiguring slot governance, buffer placement and release logic into one flow model, preserving throughput during disruption.

 

 15:10-15:30


 Execution orchestration stalls when overrides replace governed decision paths

  • Exploring how alerts and recommendations multiply when execution assumptions break during volatile operating periods.
  • Highlighting where frequent overrides, unclear thresholds and parallel decisions delay action rather than accelerate response.
  • Reassembling escalation thresholds, override permissions and action ownership into one orchestration logic, preventing paralysis under pressure.

 15:30–16:00  

PANEL

Execution risk accumulates where disruption is absorbed by individuals

  • Exploring how daily disruptions are stabilised through personal judgement and informal coordination across shifts.
  • Highlighting where repeated manual intervention concentrates risk, fatigue and inconsistency in frontline roles.
  • Redistributing decision thresholds, escalation paths and response authority into shared routines, reducing personal risk concentration.

16:00–16:30

Coffee Break

16:30–17:00  

PANEL

Ownership gaps widen as unresolved exceptions accumulate through the day

  • Exploring how unresolved issues cascade across shifts when escalation decisions are deferred rather than resolved.
  • Highlighting where late-day fatigue, handover gaps and alert accumulation weaken execution control.
  • Rebinding escalation ownership, handover discipline and resolution deadlines into one closure rhythm, containing end-of-day risk.

17:00–17:30  

PANEL

Frontline roles absorb disproportionate risk under continuous operational disruption

  • Exploring how repeated disruptions push decision-making downward when escalation pathways fail to activate.
  • Highlighting where responsibility accumulates in operational roles without corresponding authority or support.
  • Reallocating decision scope, escalation responsibility and support mechanisms into shared structures, relieving frontline overload.

17:30–18:00  

PANEL

Operational stability requires shifting volatility from individuals into systems

  • Exploring how repeated disruptions expose the limits of informal coordination and personal judgement late in the day.
  • Highlighting where unresolved ownership and fragmented escalation prevent consistent resolution across shifts.
  • Systemising escalation logic, decision thresholds and handover routines into one operating cadence, locking volatility handling at system level.









Go back to main Agenda