Enterprise
90% to 95% service level in retail replenishment
~$150K/monthnet inventory saved
Connecting promotion pricing, order quantities, long-lead-time buying, and distribution-centre allocation for a US multi-brand fashion retailer.
My role: Lead data scientist; led a team of four data scientists (three junior and one senior).
Executive Context
A US multi-brand fashion retailer planned inventory across 543 stores, four distribution centres, and three channels: brick-and-mortar, D2C, and e-commerce. The planning scope covered 28,000 base EANs and 84,000 SKUs.
Buying decisions had to account for 9–12-month lead times. By the time stock arrived, promotion plans and channel demand could have changed. The operating challenge was to maintain service while reducing inventory tied up in the wrong quantities or locations.
Diagnostic Approach
- AI Necessity: Long-lead-time commitments required decisions under uncertainty. The problem included when to order, how much to buy, which promotion price to use, and how to split stock across DCs.
- Data Sufficiency: The planning unit mattered: 28,000 base EANs became 84,000 SKUs across three channels. Aggregating that into one demand number would hide the allocation decisions.
- Methodological Fit: Price, quantity, timing, and DC allocation had different decision structures. Each needed an appropriate optimization method.
- Infrastructure Readiness: The recommendations had to support buying 9–12 months ahead and allocation across four DCs serving stores and online channels.
Strategic Intervention
We separated the replenishment problem into four decisions rather than asking one forecast to solve the entire planning workflow.
| Decision | Method | Planning purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Promotion price | Bayesian optimization | Choose a promotional price |
| Order quantity | CMA-ES | Optimize how much to order |
| Long-order timing | Q-learning | Plan when to commit a long-lead-time order |
| Distribution-centre split | Dynamic programming | Allocate inventory across DCs |
The forecast was part of the input. The value came from connecting it to purchasing, promotion, and allocation decisions at the required SKU and channel scope.
Outcome
| Measure | Before | After | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service level | 90% | 95% | Improved availability alongside inventory planning |
| Net inventory saved | Baseline | Approximately $150K/month | Reported monthly inventory result |
| Planning scope | — | 543 stores, 4 DCs, 3 channels, 84K SKUs | US multi-brand fashion retail |
| Buying horizon | — | 9–12 months | Long-lead-time replenishment |
Strategic Takeaway
A demand forecast becomes useful when it informs the commitment. Here, the commitment included promotion price, order quantity, order timing, and DC allocation. Matching the method to each decision improved service while reducing inventory pressure.
Want to find the same kind of profit leak?
See an illustrative ROI worksheet — a fictional example, separate from this case's results.
Start with a 45-minute diagnostic. We will look for the point where data, model choice, and operating decision stop matching.
Book a 45-minute diagnostic