“AI” has become one of the most frequently used terms in supply chain technology discussions. It is also one of the least precisely defined.
In recent enterprise evaluations, buyers routinely ask for “AI-driven” capabilities. Vendors describe AI as a core differentiator. Deals continue to move forward. Yet when these conversations are examined more closely, particularly later in the buying process, it becomes clear that the term is being used to describe very different things.
Over the past year, it has become increasingly difficult to treat “Supply Chain AI” as a single concept. In many late-stage discussions, the term functions less as a technical requirement and more as a signal: a way for buyers to express dissatisfaction with existing decision processes and the difficulty of explaining outcomes internally.
Vendors, understandably, respond to that signal through the lens of their own architectures and product capabilities. The result is not disagreement so much as misalignment.
What buyers tend to describe
In post-RFP and late-stage evaluation conversations, buyers rarely focus on algorithms, model training, or specific AI techniques. Instead, they describe situations where decision-making has become harder to justify.
Common themes include difficulty:
- identifying issues early enough to act meaningfully
- narrowing a growing set of options into a defensible course of action
- explaining tradeoffs to executive stakeholders
- maintaining consistency in decisions made under time pressure
In these discussions, “AI” is often used as shorthand for a system that can help reduce ambiguity and support decision justification. The expectation itself is rarely stated explicitly, and different stakeholders within the same organization often describe it differently.
This does not indicate confusion about technology as much as uncertainty about outcomes.
Where descriptions begin to diverge
Vendors typically explain AI in terms of structure and capability: learning models, optimization engines, predictive analytics, or automated recommendations. These descriptions are accurate within their own contexts, but they do not always align with how buyers describe the problems they are trying to address.
As a result, buyers frequently struggle, especially in internal discussions, to articulate why one platform’s AI approach is meaningfully different from another’s. This is not usually evident early in the evaluation process. It tends to surface later, when executive reviews, implementation planning, or expansion discussions require clearer explanations.
At that point, the issue is less about functionality and more about interpretation.
Observable changes in buying behavior
One observable outcome of this dynamic is that shortlists are forming earlier in the evaluation cycle.
In several recent enterprise selections, familiar vendors, incumbent platforms, or broadly recognized brands have been shortlisted before buyers could clearly describe the architectural tradeoffs involved. Evaluation timelines compress, but the need for understanding does not diminish. It is deferred.
This has practical consequences. Buyers commit before clarity forms. Vendors secure deals that may later prove more difficult to expand or anchor strategically.
These patterns do not reflect immaturity in the technology itself. They reflect the strain placed on shared language as capabilities converge and terminology becomes overloaded.
Why this is becoming visible now
The supply chain technology market has reached a point where “AI” alone no longer provides sufficient explanatory value. Capabilities overlap across planning, execution, visibility, and analytics platforms. Claims increasingly sound similar, even when underlying approaches differ.
As a result, buyers are being asked to make distinctions without a stable set of concepts to rely on. Vendors are being interpreted through language that no longer maps cleanly to outcomes.
In this environment, misunderstandings are more likely, not because vendors are overstating capabilities, but because the terms being used to describe those capabilities are doing too much work.
Implications for vendors and buyers
Vendors that can connect their AI capabilities to specific decision outcomes, using language that buyers can repeat internally, are likely to be better understood. Vendors that rely primarily on broad AI positioning may find themselves misclassified, even when their technology is sound.
For buyers, the risk is not selecting the wrong platform, but selecting before the criteria for differentiation are well formed. That risk tends to emerge after selection, not before.
From an analyst perspective, the issue is not whether AI claims are valid. It is how those claims are being interpreted, where interpretation diverges from intent, and how that divergence shapes buying behavior over time.
The category itself is not broken.
But the language supporting it is increasingly strained.
Until clearer distinctions emerge, “Supply Chain AI” will continue to mean different things to the people selling it and the people buying it.
_________________________________
Analyst Note
The observations above reflect patterns that are still being examined across recent enterprise evaluations and vendor discussions.
If you are a supply chain technology provider and this perspective aligns with, or differs from, your own experience, we are currently speaking with a limited number of vendors to better understand how buyer interpretation and vendor intent diverge in practice.
This is not a briefing and not a commercial discussion. It is a short, one-on-one conversation focused on clarifying how “Supply Chain AI” is being understood in the market, before definitions and assumptions become more firmly established.
Those interested are welcome to reach out directly.