Cross-Functional Governance Cadence Through S&OP
The Bertrams approach emphasizes a hierarchical S&OP framework that creates direct results through alignment from within, recommending that each hierarchical level maintains its own S&OP/IBP meeting structure pattern:
The Hierarchical Meeting Architecture
The Bertrams framework proposes separating S&OP meetings by hierarchical level to structure multiple governance purposes:
Clarified roles, processes, and responsibilities operate within a managed S&OP/IBP framework. Pending on the regional main cultural environement this is either giving teams autonomy to address issues within their own hierarchical level or they are allowed to percieve clear advice from their superiors, while still any hierarchical level can focus on decisions appropriate to their scope and authority rather than escalating every operational detail to executive forums.
A “Team-Frame” environment emphasizes psychological safety where members can discuss tasks, priorities, and conflicts openly without fear of retribution. This becomes critical for innovation and problem-solving, as teams are more likely to surface genuine constraints and creative solutions when they control their own meeting space.
Cross-functional dialogue allows teams to compare priorities and departmental targets, highlighting potential conflicts before they escalate. This prevents the common S&OP pitfall where functional tensions remain unspoken until the executive meeting, when resolution options have narrowed considerably.
Upward and downward communication ensures that teams not only execute but also advise upper and lower management on necessary changes, adjustments, or realignments. This feedback loop allows operational insights to influence strategic decisions rather than treating strategy as a one-way directive.
Standard S&OP Governance Cadence
The typical S&OP cadence operates on a monthly cycle with four to six distinct phases, each serving specific governance functions:
Data gathering and preparation (Days 0-5) establishes a consensus data cut—the single source of truth that prevents functional teams from arguing over conflicting numbers. Without this discipline, demand planning debates finance data credibility rather than debating demand assumptions.
Demand review meeting (Days 5-8) produces an unconstrained demand plan, typically led by the Sales Leader with participation from marketing and demand planners. The focus is reviewing bookings, shipments, backlog by demand stream, and updating risks and assumptions. This meeting explicitly avoids supply constraints to prevent premature self-censorship of demand signals.
Supply review meeting (Days 8-12) tests whether the network can deliver required volume, mix, and timing without violating cash and service guardrails. The Operations Leader chairs this session, producing either a feasible supply plan or a constrained shipping plan with clear gap identification. Rough-cut capacity planning (RCCP) answers strategic questions at the family or line level, not detailed SKU scheduling, to maintain speed.
Pre-S&OP reconciliation meeting (Days 12-18) brings cross-functional teams together to review demand versus supply plans, identifying misalignments or issues. This session focuses on resolving operational conflicts and preparing recommendations for executive decision-making. Finance assesses implications on revenue, margins, and cash flow. The output is a proposed plan for each product family including constrained shipping, bookings, backlog, production, inventory, and capability plans.
Executive S&OP meeting (Days 18-22) provides a standardized forum for the leadership team—typically chaired by CEO, President, or COO—to review the entire plan, address strategic issues unresolved in prior phases, evaluate scenarios and trade-offs, and make final decisions. This meeting should be capped at one hour with decisions as the goal, not endless iteration. The executive acts as ultimate arbiter when consensus cannot be reached.
Implementation and S&OE (Days 23-30) converts decisions into weekly execution plans through Sales & Operations Execution (S&OE), which manages the 0-13 week horizon and addresses short-term deviations. While S&OP looks 3-24 months ahead, S&OE ensures agility in responding to real-time changes.
Governance Mechanisms for Cross-Functional Alignment
Effective governance requires:
Clear ownership and accountability must define who owns each process step. The executive leader chairs the executive meeting, but a dedicated S&OP coordinator or process owner maintains process discipline and coordinates activities across planning cycles. Without this ownership, S&OP degenerates into status reporting rather than decision-making.
Executive sponsorship is non-negotiable. Unless executive leadership prioritizes and emphasizes cross-functional participation, S&OP becomes “a waste of time”. Executives must be present not just to review status but to approve or challenge recommendations and develop action items to address identified challenges.
Shared metrics and KPIs drive collaboration by measuring teams on the same outcomes rather than conflicting functional objectives. When departmental KPIs align with overall S&OP objectives, teams avoid siloed thinking and focus on organizational goals rather than departmental optimization.
Issue and decision logs track each issue with root cause, cash impact, decision, owner, and due date. These logs roll forward until closed, creating an audit trail for value capture and preventing issues from being discussed repeatedly without resolution.
Standard protocols sustain the model: meetings start and end on time, executives attend in person with alternative representation as exception, and participants review pre-S&OP summaries to arrive prepared. Data should be available at least 24 hours before each meeting, especially the executive session. Meetings should be scheduled six to twelve months in advance to establish routine.
The Three steps of Implementation:
Phase 1: Aligning with Business Strategy
- We recommend that your teams identify vision, mission, and the cultural truth that drives different parts of the organization before implementing tactical S&OP mechanics.
This prevents S&OP from becoming a procedural exercise disconnected from strategic context.
Phase 2: Framing the Implementing Tactics includes pilot project alignment, understanding urgent challenges, implementation of solutions first, then activation or reactivation of S&OP within aligned solutions and hands-on tools. This recognizes that S&OP cannot function without supporting infrastructure and cultural readiness.
Phase 3: Learnings and Alignment on Next Steps collects learnings, incorporates pilot-project teams as roll-out multipliers, repeats the framing cycle per region, and ensures individual onboarding of project leaders with attention to cultural gaps. This iterative approach treats S&OP governance as a capability-building journey rather than a one-time installation.
Critical Success Factors
Research identifies key enablers that determine whether S&OP governance delivers value:
Capacity to learn from previous mistakes and the ability to make changes allow continuous improvement rather than rigid adherence to an initial design.
Discipline and commitment from all participants, with well-assigned roles and responsibilities and impartiality in conducting the process, prevent S&OP from deteriorating when faced with competing priorities.
Cross-functional integration as a genuine precursor, not just representation—requiring informational quality (appropriate content and form), procedural quality (clear rules for all departments), alignment quality (synchronization of goals and actions), and constructive engagement (proactive participation that defends interests productively).
Performance evaluation and information systems provide the technical infrastructure to analyze decision impacts in real-time and track progress against committed plans.
The Bertrams framework recognizes that achieving these success factors requires attention to how diversity and cultural complexity unlock company potential rather than treating cultural differences as obstacles to standardization. By structuring S&OP governance with hierarchical meeting separation, psychological safety, and cultural adaptation, organizations create the conditions for cross-functional cadence that coordinates complexity rather than being imprisoned by it.