The "material command center" is the right idea for life sciences. But visibility and scenario simulation are still tools your team has to operate. The next layer is one that operates the operation for them. In a rush? Here are the 3 key takeaways 👉 Most material command centers today are observatories, not command centres. They unify the view and run scenarios but a human still has to log in, ask the question, and carry the decision back out into the organization. 👉 Tools

Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment was built to make sure you never run out. It was never designed to make sure you never end up with too much. For Life Sciences and perishable-goods companies, the second problem is where the money is leaking. In a rush? Here are the 3 key takeaways 👉 CPFR was designed to solve one half of the material equation making sure you never run out. The other half, too much of the wrong kind, was never in scope. That's where pharm

Better forecasts won't fix excess and obsolete stock. What happens after a risk is detected is where the value lives, and that's an orchestration problem, not a prediction problem. In a rush? Here are the 3 key takeaways 👉 Forecasts have improved. Write-offs haven't. The bottleneck was never prediction it's the six-to-ten weeks of email-chasing that happen after a risk is flagged. 👉 AI agents for material don't predict better. They monitor risk, route it to the right owner,

The review boards exist for good reasons. The way most of them run, in 2026, isn't one of them. In a rush? Here are the 3 key takeaways 👉 MRB and IRB aren't quality failures. They're operating-model failures wearing a quality costume. The safeguard is sound — the choreography around it is what leaks weeks. 👉 The thirty-minute review meeting isn't the bottleneck. It's the two-to-four weeks of manual context-gathering, email approvals, and ERP reconciliation that surround it.