It this video, we will demonstrate an evolution of decisions, which starts at the PMR, where we look for opportunities to close the NOPBT gap by reducing spend on above the line marketing activations.

From the PMR, we move to the DMR, where we evaluate planned promotions, risks and opportunities and AI generated proposals to further close the gap.

Next, in the SMR, we run a detailed supply response by leveraging o9's digital twin and get full visibility on supportability, cost to serve, and contribution margin.

Finally, in the IBP meeting, we review proposed scenarios, create an incremental scenario and decide to approve the best possible scenario.

Let's start with the PMR.

We've identified that there's a gap versus the annual operating plan NOPBT and that the highest gap is with Let's go into the platform to see what the category lead for will do to close this gap.

To start, the PMR meeting starts with a dashboard, providing key highlights, such as net revenue and margin outlook versus annual operating plan, GAAP review at brand level, cycle over cycle brand performance, portfolio analysis, and visibility to capacity constraints and excess capacity.

The NOPBT gap review provides visibility to the largest gaps at Grandland.

The review demonstrates that tracks two point two million euros below the annual operating plan's NOPBT.

The analytics engine of o9 provides additional insights such as the outlook confidence, bias in the outlook, and priority for gap closure.

The category teams have worked together with the marketing teams to find initiatives to close the gap.

First, they create a scenario in o9. Entitled o two PMR spend reduction.

One PR initiative, part of the ATL category, has been re negotiated with the PR agency resulting in a one hundred and fifty k spend reduction.

The scenario compare functionality clearly highlights the reduction of A and M spend in the newly created scenario.

We now go to the DM We can see that we were able to reduce the gap to NOPBT from the PMR, but we still have a large gap left to close.

Now, let's jump back into the platform to see what the key account manager and demand planners for Netherlands Albert Heinz would see.

At the start of the DMR meeting, the DMR dashboard provides key highlights such as net revenue and margin outlook versus annual operating plan, gap review at brand and account level, cycle over cycle performance, range forecast, with a left goalpost and a right goalpost, visibility to capacity constraints and excess capacity.

Their revenue gap review provides visibility to the largest gaps at brand and account level. The starting point of the review is the o two PMR spend reduction scenario that was created in the PMR step.

The review demonstrates that at Alholt, Albert Hine, tracks five point six million euros below the AOP revenues.

The analytics engine of o9 provides additional insights such as the outlook confidence, bias in the outlook, and priority for gap closure.

The detailed analysis indicates that the gap to AOP in the period Jan twenty twenty one to June twenty twenty one, similar to what we found in the PMR.

The brown and purple bars highlight the baseline revenue and enrichment.

The various grids in the bottom show planned promotions, planned activities, risks and opportunities, and incremental proposals.

The account teams have created a gap closure scenario.

Three DMR RO and proposals, and have found various initiatives to close the gaps such as adjustments to plan promotions, I. E. Timelines or volumes, updated risks and opportunities, and incremental proposals.

The account teams have evaluated various plan promotions and adjusted the expected volumes based on a change in timeline or additional competitor information.

The planned promotions are at sold to and planning item level.

The O9 Analytics engine gives full visibility to the portfolio classification.

There are four types of classification.

Growth engine items, laggard items, learn and prove items, and profit driver items.

The portfolio analytics analysis classifies items in one of the four categories based on revenue rank, marginal distribution rank, volume growth rank, and forecast accuracy rank.

Such analysis makes it much easier for commercial teams to assess gap closure actions and helps with prioritization.

The o9 pulse function is designed to are unstructured information, document assumptions, and communicate with other users in the organization.

In this example, the expected volume from a planned promotion has been adjusted because there's a competitor stock out issue anticipated.

This info is captured through the pulse function and can be liked, commented on, or forwarded to others.

Previously maintained in Excel, but now in o9, a camper overview of all identified risks and opportunities, including the owner, the probability, comments, start date, and day and more.

The o9 platform can prescribe which initiatives to initiate to close the gap as part of the seed proposal capability.

The analytics engine takes it to consideration the performance of past promotions, various drivers, example, competitive promotions, and constraints, for example, budget, number of promotion slots at a retailer, etcetera, to come to a best as possible recommendation.

After closing the gap, the commercial teams have the ability to review the supply chain visibility at an aggregated capacity v level.

o9 will give insights to the capacity constraints and availability at resource and plans level.

Next, we go to the SMR. We've received input from the DMR on new scenarios to drive more volume for In Netherlands at Albert Heinz. We now need to assess the feasibility and impact on costs of these new atives. Let's jump back into the platform to see how a category supply planner would do this.

The SMR meeting starts with a dashboard providing key highlights such as demand supportability by supply scenario, inventory analysis, highlighting excess capacity constraints and excess capacity, material constraints, and sustain a metrics such as R PET and V PET.

The o9 platform runs the Sify response according to preconfigured scenarios. Such as the standard scenario where the supply chain solver runs the demand supply match according to the standard operating model of the organization not allowing for expedites, flex, and alternate sourcing.

Some other preconfigured scenarios could be alternate lane which allows for alternate options, but does not allow for flex and or expedites.

The flex capacity scenario, which allows for flex capacity but does not allow for alternate and or expedites or the flex plus alternate scenario, which allows for both flex and alternates.

The of the solver provides details such as supportability, constrained revenues, cogs, non standard costs, inventory and marginal contribution.

o9 is able to provide a recommendation based on highest marginal contribution.

The non standard cost analysis is particularly important as there's uncertainty in the gap closure scenario, but the supply costs are real and immediate, thus potentially leading to extra costs and excess inventory.

Navigate from the standard scenario to understand which demand cannot be satisfied.

The dotted line represents the unconstrained revenues, while the green bars represent all the demand that can be satisfied on time, and the red bar is the demand that cannot be met on time.

The grid in the bottom of the page can be filtered. The gap to understand which demand, example, item, customer, demand type, or demand priority cannot be satisfied.

We then navigate to the demand supportability details of a forecast for the item in Albertheim.

The demand supportability details indicate a capacity in our production line in the plant in derp. We changed the scenario to o five SMR flex capacity and use the digital twin capability of the o9 platform to understand how the demand can be satisfied.

The network view indicates that flex capacity can used at a resource in the Verne Plan. We then changed this scenario to o six SMR alternate lane and used the digital twin capability of the O9 platform to understand how the demand can be satisfied.

The network view indicates that an alternate lane can be used and an alternate plant, Caragado and Portugal.

We then move on to the IBP to bring it all together. The teams have prepared various scenarios and evaluated the impacts and we now need to decide which scenario to improve to help close the gap. Let's jump into the platform to see how the leadership team would do this.

The IVP meeting starts with an agenda for the meeting, followed by an executive dashboard which provides key highlights such as net revenue and margin outlook versus the annual operating plan, top risks and opportunities, GAAP review at the channel level.

Gap closure scenarios versus AOP.

SMR scenarios promoted to the IBP meeting.

The IDP agenda is completely configurable. But in this example, we can see the flow of the meeting on the left side, starting with action item reviews, followed by proposals and details from the PMR, DMR, SMR, and IR.

The key task of an IBP meeting Could be to review the KPI dashboard, review and approve IBP proposals, and approve the non standard supply chain costs.

It has become evident that the teams have not been able to solve the gap completely.

In the IBP meeting, there is a review of the largest opportunities, of which one of the largest still has status TBD and relates to incremental volume related to premier league promotion During the IBP meeting, we would like to confirm this promotion and run an incremental scenario.

After confirming the opportunity from the previous x size, the users can create a scenario on the fly. The source version is three DMR risk opportunities and proposals to make sure a scenario does not have to be created from scratch, but all the previous work can be leveraged. The users can select the just confirm opportunity and immediately evaluate the impact on the gap. In this example, it becomes clear that the new proposal solves the gap outline bring the newly created scenario forward in the IBP meeting and compare with other scenarios.

While the Gatford at Ahold has been closed completely, there is still a small gap at the total category level.

Though this gap is much lower versus all other scenarios and seems to be the scenario that we can approve.

The final IBP scenario indicates an increase in revenues from forty six million euros to fifty one million euros and an increase in NOBPT from sixteen million euros to eighteen million euros. Go ahead and select the newly created scenario to become the final IVP scenario.