Digital Visibility and Supplier Insight Outpace Extra Inventory in Supply Chain Resilience

Supply chain resilience appears to deliver more when companies can see problems early and act on current information than when they rely on large inventory buffers. That is the central finding of consultancy Efeso’s international survey of 250 supply chain executives: businesses with stronger resilience capabilities generally report better performance, while higher stock levels are much more common among lower performers.

The evidence is a statistical correlation, not proof that resilience causes better results. And capability alone isn’t enough: 74 of the 250 companies scored relatively highly on resilience but had not translated those capabilities into sufficiently strong performance. For supply chain leaders, the practical question is how visibility, planning and response connect to day-to-day decisions.

Digital maturity separates performance groups

Efeso compared 109 high-performing companies with 141 lower-performing ones across six measures of resilience. The widest gap was in digital supply chain capability. Advanced tools, including real-time visibility and advanced analytics, were in place at 48% of the high-performing group, compared with 10% of the lower-performing group.

The difference also shows up in how far companies can see through their supplier networks. Full visibility into tier-two and tier-three suppliers was reported by 39% of high performers and 25% of lower performers. Early disruption detection followed a similar pattern: 55% of high performers described their capability as strong, against 43% of lower performers.

These findings point to a working advantage: knowing where a disruption may emerge gives teams more time to consider alternatives, shift capacity or adjust plans. That advantage depends on information reaching people who can make decisions, though. Visibility on its own doesn’t change a shipment plan, sourcing choice or production schedule.

Large buffers are common among lower performers

Efeso found smaller gaps in supplier diversification and the frequency of formal risk reviews. Fully integrated supplier diversification was reported by 41% of high-performing companies, compared with 29% of lower-performing companies. Monthly supply chain risk assessments were conducted by 26% and 16%, respectively.

Inventory produced the sharpest contrast. More than 60 days of stock on average was held by 98% of lower-performing companies, compared with 35% of high performers. Efeso recognizes that stock can provide a cushion when supply is interrupted. But persistently large buffers may also reflect weak inventory management and tie up working capital that companies could otherwise use elsewhere.

The report’s argument is for flexibility alongside protection: alternative suppliers, the ability to reallocate capacity quickly and decisions informed by current data. For operators, the distinction matters. A buffer can buy time, but it does not by itself reveal which supplier is at risk, identify available capacity or determine which orders should receive priority.

Visibility connects with forecasting and response

Across the full survey, 31% of companies said they had complete visibility across their extended supply chain. Another 43% reported partial visibility, while 26% had little or none.

Performance measures varied substantially across those groups. Among companies with full visibility, 76% reported high demand forecast accuracy; among those with limited or no visibility, the share was 20%. Strong disruption detection was reported by 69% of fully visible companies, versus 25% of companies without sufficient visibility. The ability to respond within three weeks was reported by 90% of the full-visibility group and 59% of the group without sufficient visibility.

Those figures describe reported outcomes, not a guarantee that visibility will produce a particular response time. Efeso’s caution is that data creates value only when teams use it to choose and carry out actions. A company may have a broad view of its suppliers and still struggle if information sits in separate systems or decision rights are unclear.

Plans are more common than regular preparation

More than half of the surveyed companies, 52%, had a fully formalized business continuity plan. Yet only 20% assessed supply chain risks monthly, and 14% regularly ran stress tests. The gap suggests that documented procedures don’t always come with a regular cycle for checking assumptions, testing response options and updating plans.

Sector findings offer another example of the role of decision tools. In automotive, 53% of companies relied primarily on ERP systems for decision-making, compared with 44% across all respondents. Advanced analytics or real-time visibility served as the main decision-support tools for 22% of automotive companies. In food and drink, the share was about 30%.

Efeso recommends making resilience part of operating decisions rather than treating it as a standalone risk project. Scenario analysis, digital twins, crisis procedures and collaboration across functions are among the approaches it identifies. The survey’s clearest operational message is to pair a view of the supply network with the routines and authority to act on it. Efeso’s report, “Supply chain resilience as competitive advantage”, sets out the findings; the original coverage appeared at Supply Chain Movement.