The 2027 budget is being built right now. The revenue assumptions going into it, including volume, mix, capacity and working capital, are being negotiated in meeting rooms. Your S&OP revenue planning process holds the data needed to challenge every one of them. Yet many companies never make that connection.
Here’s how most annual operating plans get built. The commercial team submits a revenue number. Finance tests it against last year’s actuals. Operations is given a volume target and told to make it work. Nobody in that room has pulled up the S&OP demand projection to ask whether the volume assumption is realistic, or whether the margin implied by that revenue number survives contact with actual capacity constraints.
Then February arrives. A top customer shifts their forecast. A key line is running at 94% utilisation and there is no buffer for the Q2 demand build. Spot purchasing kicks in. Overtime gets approved. By Q3, you are explaining to the board why the budgeted EBITDA margin is 200 basis points below plan.
This is not bad luck. It is a process failure, and it is entirely preventable. The data your organisation needs to build a credible 2027 plan already exists. It lives in your S&OP revenue planning process. The question is whether your planning cycle is structured to use it.
Stress testing a revenue assumption is not pessimism. It is discipline. It means asking four questions before the budget is locked, not after it starts missing.
The frame is simple: the question is not whether the revenue number is achievable. It is whether operations can deliver it at the margin the budget assumes. Those are different questions. S&OP is the process best equipped to answer the second one across your organisation.
A well functioning S&OP process generates four outputs that finance and the executive team should be actively using during the Q2 and Q3 strategy cycle. Most organisations produce some version of these. Few use them directly to challenge the assumptions underpinning the budget.
Your S&OP demand signal is the most operationally grounded view of forward volume in the business. Where it diverges from the commercial team’s overall revenue assumption is exactly where the budget is most exposed. If S&OP demand planning is projecting flat demand in a product family that the revenue plan assumes will grow by 15%, someone needs to explain the difference before it is built into the AOP.
Every plant has a ceiling. S&OP, when functioning at Level 3 or above, should be generating a clear picture of which lines, plants, or suppliers are already operating near capacity — and what the demand plan implies about their utilisation heading into next year. A revenue plan that ignores known capacity constraints doesn’t just miss its margin target. It triggers a predictable cascade: expediting, unplanned overtime, customer fines, and reactive capital decisions made under pressure instead of with lead time.
With 11 global facilities operating on different ERP systems, this $2B+ manufacturer lacked a unified view of demand, capacity, and production across its sites in Illinois, Belgium, and Italy. Disconnected data left capacity planners, sales, and customer service teams working in silos — unable to forecast demand, identify constraints, or shift production across sites. The consequences were real: $2M+ in expedited air freight after capacity issues went undetected. TBM integrated the fragmented data into a unified Power BI platform and designed an S&OP process that gave leadership real-time capacity visibility across all three sites.
Result: $1M+ in freight costs avoided. The S&OP process now runs independently.
Revenue growth has a working capital cost. Most S&OP and budget planning processes model the revenue without modelling the inventory investment required to support it. When demand and supply are properly connected, S&OP shows what inventory positioning the proposed plan requires and where cash will be consumed across the cycle. This is where CFO engagement in S&OP pays for itself. The finance leader who reviews the S&OP inventory projection alongside the revenue plan before the AOP is submitted is far less likely to be surprised by a working capital draw in Q1.
At this $3.6B food packaging manufacturer operating across 39 plants, production was driven by machine utilisation rather than actual customer demand. End-of-quarter promotions had trained customers to stockpile, creating artificial volume peaks that manufacturing struggled to absorb. The result: two to three months of inventory sitting in the system at any given time, tying up capital and creating constant firefighting. Once TBM restructured the demand and supply planning process — shifting to pull-based replenishment and statistical forecasting using regional POS data — the picture changed sharply.
Result: $1M inventory reduction on a single product line. Forecast accuracy improved from 55% to 75%. Case-fill rates improved from 97.7% to 98.5% even as inventory declined.
What happens to the 2027 revenue plan if your top customer delays their programme by a quarter? If a critical raw material constraint emerges in March? If the new product launch ramps up at only 70% of the projected rate? A mature S&OP process models these scenarios before they become crises, rather than responding to them afterwards. The output is not a worst case budget. It is a set of decision ready triggers: if X happens, here is the operational response and here is what it will cost. That is the kind of input that allows an executive team to build contingency into the AOP rather than absorb surprises mid year.
The window to use S&OP outputs effectively in the planning process is narrow, and most companies miss it because the two processes run on parallel tracks with no formal handover.
The companies that get this right do not treat S&OP and the AOP as separate processes. They treat S&OP as a live input into the budget process, one that updates assumptions in real time and flags when the plan begins to drift from operational reality.
If you are the CFO and your S&OP process is not producing inputs to the budget process, these are the questions that will expose where the disconnects sit and signal to your operations team that the two processes need to be better connected.
“Show me the S&OP demand projection for the next 18 months alongside the revenue assumptions in this budget. Where do they diverge, and who is responsible for resolving the difference?”
“What is the capacity constraint that poses the greatest risk to this revenue plan, and what is the cost of hitting that constraint unexpectedly compared with managing it proactively?”
“What does this revenue plan require in inventory investment? Is that working capital requirement reflected in our cash flow assumptions?”
“What are the top three scenarios that could materially change this plan, and have we modelled what each one would cost us operationally?”
The CFO who asks these questions in September is the one who avoids a difficult margin conversation in April. The data needed to answer them already exists in your S&OP process. The question is whether anyone is connecting it to the budget process.
Most manufacturers have two separate calendars: an S&OP calendar and an annual planning and budget calendar. They run in parallel and rarely converge. The S&OP team does not always know when budget assumptions are being set, while finance may not have a clear mechanism for using S&OP outputs. The result is a budget built around commercial expectations that operations then spends the next 12 months trying to reconcile with operational reality.
The fix requires three things:
None of this requires new technology. It requires governance: a deliberate decision by the CEO, COO and CFO to connect the two processes and hold both functions accountable to the same plan.
The 2027 revenue number your organisation is preparing to approve has been built on commercial assumptions, historical trends and a set of operational inputs that may or may not reflect what your supply chain can actually deliver, at the required margin, mix and volume.
Your S&OP process has the data to pressure test every one of those assumptions. The question is whether your planning cycle is structured to use it, or whether you will discover in Q2 that the plan and operational reality were never truly aligned.
TBM’s supply chain team has helped manufacturers across a range of industries connect S&OP outputs to strategy and budget processes, turning planning cycles that run in parallel into a single, connected system that protects EBITDA and reduces the risk of budget surprises. If your 2027 plan is being built without S&OP inputs, now is the time to start the conversation.
Key Takeaways
Schedule a 15-minute call with your Advisor
Management System + Operational Leadership
Management System + Operational Leadership
Don’t miss industry expert insights.
Join a community committed to excellence.
