You made the right call.

Tariff exposure was real. The math on moving production away from China was clean and clear and you spent six months vetting a new supplier, negotiating terms, running landed cost comparisons.

The decision was correct.

The problem is what happened next.

The complete insight. Read this and decide if the details are for you or better forwarded to someone on your team.

Brands that switched suppliers to manage tariff exposure made a sourcing decision. Most never updated their planning system to match it.

Your old supply chain ran on 8 week lead times. Safety stock, reorder points, OTB calendar, all calibrated to that. But when lead times doubled to 14 weeks, the supply chain changed while the planning model didn't.

Two outcomes follow. Order on the old timing and go out of stock. Adjust the buffer and carry 12 weeks of inventory instead of 4, tying up 3x the cash you can't deploy elsewhere.

The sourcing decision was right. Leaving the planning model alone was the expensive one.

Some business news reads like a lullaby.

Morning Brew is the opposite.

A free daily newsletter that breaks down what’s happening in business and culture — clearly, quickly, and with enough personality to keep things interesting.

Each morning brings a sharp, easy-to-read rundown of what matters, why it matters, and what it means to you. Plus, there’s daily brain games everyone’s playing.

Business news, minus the snooze. Read by over 4 million people every morning.

Try Morning Brew for Free

Take a $16M apparel brand moving production to a Bangladesh supplier. Tariff savings: $240K annually. New lead time from the factory: 14 weeks, up from 8.

They keep the same planning model.

Reorder points built for a 8 week supply chain. Safety stock set at 4 weeks of cover. OTB calendar mapped to the old production cadence.

For the first two quarters, the business looks stable. They're still running on inventory from the previous supplier. The math hasn't caught up yet.

By Q4, it had.

When lead time doubles, the consequences aren't proportional. They compound.

At 8 week lead times with 4 weeks of safety stock, you reorder when you have roughly 12 weeks of inventory on hand. Miss that trigger and you have a 4 week recovery window before you're out of stock.

At 14 week lead times, you need to reorder with 17-20 weeks on hand. Miss that trigger and you have a 6 week hole to fill. Air freight at 4x cost. Stockouts on core SKUs. Canceled wholesale orders.

The brand hit all three. Q4 fill rates to their two wholesale accounts dropped from 94% to 71%. One account put them on probation. The other shorted their next season buy.

Inventory write-downs and lost wholesale revenue that quarter: $310K. Against $240K in annual tariff savings.

Nobody sat down after the supplier switch and asked: what does this do to our planning system?

The sourcing team closed the deal. Ops updated the vendor profile. Finance tracked the landed cost improvement. Nobody owned the question of whether the safety stock logic or OTB calendar needed to be rebuilt.

That's the organizational gap that made the right decision expensive.

A supply chain isn't just a vendor relationship. It's a set of timing assumptions baked into every planning model the business runs. Change the supply chain and leave the assumptions alone, and the model produces the wrong answers immediately. You just don't see it until the inventory catches up to the math.

The brands getting this right treat every supply chain change as a planning system event, not a procurement event.