Predicting vs. Preparing: The Growing Gap in Responding to Disruptions

As supply chain disruptions have become near-constant occurrences across virtually every sector, companies are unquestionably getting better at predicting the next big shock. But a gap still exists between knowing what's coming and actually using that knowledge to move quickly and make critical, time-sensitive decisions.

Much of the emphasis in recent years has been on having the right tools to predict disruptions before they arrive. According to an MHI survey of more than 700 supply chain professionals in late-2024, 40% of respondents said that they were already using predictive analytics, while another 87% planned to do so within the next five years. A separate survey in early 2025 of 610 supply chain officers from accounting firm PwC found that more than half reported using artificial intelligence to anticipate supply chain disruptions, with an additional 31% testing and piloting the technology.

So, with all those fancy systems in place to fight the ever-present onslaught of geopolitical and economic disruptions, why are companies still slow to respond once they have the necessary information in hand?

"Being able to predict that something is coming down the line is not as important as being able to execute when those emergencies happen. What I've found in working with clients across all industries and all levels across the globe is that this is a universal challenge."

- Erin McFarlane, VP of operations for sourcing software provider Fairmarkit.

A November 2025 survey of more than 150 senior supply chain executives from DP World revealed that, while the vast majority of firms expect geopolitical risks to intensify over the next two years, just 25% of them said that they feel "very prepared," while half admitted that they were only "somewhat prepared." Research from logistics software provider Kinaxis also found that 83% of companies can't respond to disruptions within 24 hours, while the average response time across 1,800 surveyed supply chain leaders was five days.

The problem, McFarlane theorizes, is that many businesses don't fully grasp the breadth of collaboration that it takes to proactively plan for disruptions. A shortage of a single product often requires complex coordination across departments, as well as with leadership, suppliers and logistics partners. Something as basic as reevaluating a sourcing decision doesn't just require input from procurement, but also from finance and legal, and from any number of external suppliers and manufacturers to boot. And in the end, a process that's difficult enough to navigate in a vacuum becomes even harder when the warning signs are already flashing.

"There's just too much information for one person to keep in their head," McFarlane explains. "A question as simple as 'how do I buy this,' or 'how do I change from this supplier to this supplier?' isn't something that one department or one group of people can really answer."

Another part of the issue, she adds, is that modern supply chains have become more complex than ever, with more suppliers, more handoffs, more regulatory scrutiny, and far less margin for error when something suddenly goes wrong. At the same time, the pace and frequency of disruptions has accelerated to the point where teams are often managing multiple shocks at once, leaving little room for them to pause, regroup and methodically assess a situation that could potentially cost their company millions in revenue if the wrong decisions are made.

That's left firms in a state of panic, where it's become easy to try and "boil the ocean" in response, McFarlane says, as they attempt to plan for every potential outcome, and ultimately fail to acknowledge that there's simply no way to guard against every possible doomsday scenario, no matter how good your predictive analytics are. What's more vital, she notes, is building flexibility into existing processes.

"Because if you can handle the thing when it happens, you don't need six weeks to know what's going to happen," McFarlane posits.

That means focusing on a small, specific set of what might represent the most painful use cases for your supply chain — rather than trying to model every conceivable risk — and then putting clear ownership, playbooks and decision paths in place so that teams can act immediately when those scenarios start to unfold. Then it becomes a question of making sure that each team has a clear idea of their specific roles, and how they intersect with other departments. In practice, that shift allows companies to trade exhaustive planning for more agility, making it easier to respond decisively when disruptions move faster than forecasts ever could.

Today, poor orchestration has emerged as the biggest bottleneck for supply chains facing disruptions, McFarlane says, as teams lose valuable time between insight and action. Although predictive analytics are an important piece of the larger puzzle, it's just as essential to be able to intelligently and efficiently use those analytics to make informed decisions, ensure that disparate departments are moving in lockstep, and execute those decisions across the organization before a disruption has the chance to delay shipping timelines and bleed a company's revenue.

Too often, McFarlane says, those steps are taken across disconnected systems and departments, leaving organizations scrambling to piece together answers in the middle of a crisis.

"We can sense emergencies as much as we want," she adds. "But it doesn't matter that you knew about it if you're not able to take action."

Source: Supply Chain Brain