John McFall and Martin McKie, founders of Supply Chain Wise, have spent their careers inside global supply chains and leading transformations at Amazon Web Services before launching their own advisory practice. In this conversation with JP Doggett, they explain why current innovation models are stuck in reactive cycles, how vendor incentives reinforce fragmentation and how composability could redefine how supply chains innovate.
JP Doggett: When you look at how organisations approach innovation today, what do you see holding them back?
Martin McKie: Too many supply chains wait until there’s a burning platform. That’s when the business case gets approved, when the board loosens the purse strings. But the result is very large, very rigid programmes with benefits backloaded for years. By the time those benefits arrive, the assumptions have already shifted.
John McFall: And because those decisions happen under pressure, the business case often gets inflated. The promises look fantastic at the start but the delivery rarely matches. That erodes trust. So the next time someone comes forward with an idea, they’re met with scepticism. It creates a cycle where innovation only ever happens in crisis mode.
JP Doggett: You’ve both said Excel is still the glue in billion-pound supply chains. What do you mean exactly?
McFall: If you look behind the scenes at most large organisations, you’ll find spreadsheets bridging the gaps between systems. They might have SAP, Manhattan, Blue Yonder, Salesforce - you name it. But they don’t connect properly. Excel becomes the stitching that makes the day-to-day work.
McKie: And it’s not by design. No one sets out saying “let’s run a global S&OP cycle on Excel.” But when the systems don’t integrate, people humanise the gaps. That’s how you end up with shadow processes. It works but it’s fragile. And it means the business is innovating around its systems rather than through them.
JP Doggett: Some would argue that SaaS was meant to fix these integration challenges. Why hasn’t it?
McFall: Because the incentives are wrong. Vendors aren’t motivated to make write-back integration easy. Reading data out is fine - it looks open - but writing back in is where they keep control. That’s how they protect their position.
McKie: Every vendor wants to be the gravitational centre. But no single platform can cover the full complexity of a modern supply chain. That’s why we see silos everywhere. Each system is strong in its domain but the lack of orchestration keeps companies dependent and inflexible.
JP Doggett: So how do companies avoid being locked in like this?
McFall: Governance is the key. Procurement should be insisting on standards upfront - secure APIs, free flow of data and clarity on how systems can interoperate. Too often those conditions are missing and then companies find themselves paying thousands a month just to extract their own data.
McKie: If you build openness into contracts, you create options. You can test a new tool, plug it in and remove it if it doesn’t work, without tearing everything else down. That’s what governance should be about... creating leverage and optionality, not dependency.
JP Doggett: A lot of supply chain leaders tell me they try to keep IT at arm’s length, at least at first. How do you see that?
McKie: It’s one of the most common mistakes. IT is seen as “the land of no,” so the business goes directly to SaaS providers. But then you end up with risky buying decisions on the one side and defensive IT on the other. Neither has the full picture.
McFall: The companies that succeed are the ones where business, IT and data science are brought together early. Each brings a different perspective and that balance is what stops projects from either being too cautious or too reckless. Without it, you end up with silos dressed up as innovation.
JP Doggett: So how does composability change the game?
McKie: It lowers the risk. Instead of a giant bet on a single programme, you can add modular components one by one. Keep your core stable, plug in new capabilities through APIs and build confidence as you go. If something works, you scale it. If it doesn’t, you move on. That’s a fundamentally different way of innovating.
McFall: We use the analogy of an air traffic control tower. Each operator uses specialist tools but the orchestration layer brings it all together so controllers can make safe decisions. That’s what composability enables. You can run demand planning in one system, warehouse management in another but they still feed into a common view. It’s not about replacing everything. It’s about making the pieces work together in a way that gives you flexibility.
JP Doggett: You’ve both argued that composability isn’t just a technology issue... it’s also about leaders having the right skills. What do you mean by that?
John McFall: If supply chain leaders don’t have a working knowledge of how modular systems fit together, they can’t really challenge vendors or shape the discussion. Too often, they’re left relying on consultants to tell them what’s possible. That leaves them exposed. You don’t need to be able to code, but you do need the fluency to ask the right questions.
Martin McKie: It’s the same with AI. Everyone’s talking about it, but without understanding how it actually interacts with data and workflows, it gets treated like magic. Leaders need to know enough to separate hype from reality. Otherwise, they’ll end up buying tools that don’t integrate or that don’t solve the real problem.
McFall: That’s why we set up our Academy. The idea is to give supply chain directors a foundation in modular thinking, data fluency and AI literacy. If you can get comfortable with those basics, you’re much better placed to run pilots, to see through the sales pitch and to make composability work in practice.
McKie: Because in the end, this isn’t just about technology. It’s about confidence. Leaders who understand the building blocks are able to take more ownership of innovation instead of waiting for IT or vendors to dictate the agenda. That’s what makes composability real.
JP Doggett: Looking ahead, who do you think will be able to take advantage of this model?
McKie: The organisations that create a culture of testing and learning. Not waiting for the next crisis but embedding innovation as a steady capability. Composability makes that possible by lowering the cost of failure but it still takes intent to act before the fire is burning.
McFall: And orchestration is the dividing line. Without it, modular tools just become more silos. The leaders will use composability to create speed, resilience and choice. The laggards will still be stitching spreadsheets while others move past them.
For McKie and McFall, the lesson is that supply chain innovation has been stuck in cycles of crisis, vendor dependency and patchwork spreadsheets. Composability offers a way out - not by ripping everything up but by giving leaders the confidence to innovate step by step, build optionality and humanise systems without relying on shadow processes.
As McKie put it: “It feels safer to wait for the fire before you act. But by then, you’ve already lost options.”