​​Building Resilient Supply Networks for a More Reliable Future

For years, efficiency has been the benchmark of success across logistics and supply chain operations. Systems have been optimized, timelines tightened, and inventory reduced-all in pursuit of doing more with less. But as recent disruptions have shown, supply chains are no longer operating in predictable environments. Efficiency alone is no longer enough. In many cases, it has introduced a new form of risk: fragility.

To explore this shift, the Inside the Digital Sphere guest series invited former Starbucks store manager Ariel Peralta, who now oversees operations at Placemark's largest property located within Ponce City Market.

Our conversation was shaped not only by her current role in a fast-growing startup environment but also by a shared professional foundation-navigating high-volume operations, supply chain coordination, and the everyday unpredictability that comes with it.

The discussion reflected operations in real time, where systems are continuously tested under pressure.

The logistics industry has spent decades optimizing for efficiency above all else, yet this focus seems to have made many businesses more fragile. From your experience, why do lean operations tend to break first during a crisis?

Lean operations can work really well, until something goes terribly wrong-and something usually does. When everything is optimized down to the minute details, there isn’t much room to adjust or make improvements. So when an issue arises, no matter the scale, it can spread quickly like a ripple effect because there is no buffer or protocol in place to absorb it. Some issues can be minor, while others are more severe.

We often hear that 'Just-in-Time' is no longer enough. As companies shift toward 'Just-in-Case,' how can leaders build resilience without tying up too much capital in inventory?

This is something I’ve seen too many times to count across companies and industries. A lot of companies overspend in numerous ways while trying to prepare for an influx of business or traffic. But when the season is over, they are left with large amounts of inventory that is no longer relevant.

Having peer-to-peer relationships across regions and districts has been my saving grace. Those relationships have allowed me, even to this day, the ability to reallocate supplies when and where necessary. In the logistics industry, I’ve learned that peer relationships and building rapport mean the most.

To me, nurturing these relationships has saved me when my business was in a bind. Partnering with peers and like-minded people in similar industries has benefited me individually, but it's also been beneficial to my company because of what I am able to bring through those networks.

Now, as far as how leaders can build resilience without tying up too much capital in inventory, take a look at the data because it doesn’t lie. I believe in leaning on metrics and operational insights-that’s primary. Secondly, I have found much value in partnership consulting to find logistical solutions. Having outside expertise that understands the industry has been incredibly valuable.

Geopolitical disruptions are becoming more common. How can businesses design their supply chains to absorb these uncertainties rather than constantly reacting to them?

Well, I’m just going to build on the last question a bit here. A lot of companies spend a lot of time reacting to the preparation that they thought they executed well. But human things happen in the world of logistics. A supplier or delivery truck can be delayed, a winter storm can hit the Southeast region of the United States, and rising tariffs can cause delays and cutbacks.

All of these scenarios I have witnessed and endured numerous times in my tenure at Starbucks Coffee Company, and I’ve been seeing it now at Placemakr. Having those regional relationships and operational flexibility is incredibly important when in a bind. However, the overall picture is that the right systems need to be in place to support these situations or prevent them from escalating.

The beginning steps to remedy this, from my expertise, are to consult the people on the ground. What gaps or opportunities for improvement can you gain insight from within your own organization? After gaining those insights and understanding how teams are navigating those issues in real-time, it becomes a valuable opportunity to listen and adjust.

Who would know better than the actual people navigating and troubleshooting these issues every single day? So lean in on internal teams to give foundational insights, then expand on those insights by partnering with consultants in the same or other parallel industries. In my professional experience, this has given me the ability to see processes happen in a full circle, from the moment of thought, to creation, to implementation and execution.

We’ve seen incredible volatility in global markets recently. What is the 'fragility gap' that so many companies are falling into right now?

The fragility gap from my experience is the difference between how systems perform in ideal conditions vs how they actually play out in real-time. Sometimes, on paper, the metrics look great, and everything is optimized and streamlined. But in reality, those very same systems can struggle the moment something unpredictable happens-when something human happens.

Many companies often assume that since everything is running smoothly, it's also resilient. But that definitely isn’t always the case. What I have witnessed is companies building for consistency and not adaptability.

So when a major disruption hits the supply chain-whether it be delays, staffing gaps, or external factors like weather or policy changes-the system doesn’t have the ability to recalibrate. So, to me, the fragility gap shows up where there is a disconnection between strategy and real-world execution.

In my experience, the companies that are able to close that gap are the ones that not only rely on data and planning but also stay closely connected to operational reality. Having those round-table talks, weekly check-ins, and connecting with your team is vital to a company's growth and success. When you are “boots on the ground,” you have access to a much more authentic understanding of the needs of the business.

For smaller businesses with limited resources, how should they approach resilience? Can it be built gradually, or does it require a major upfront investment?

It all begins with awareness. Knowing and understanding what your biggest risks are, where the delays tend to happen, and what areas may be more susceptible to disruption. I believe once you gain that level of clarity, you can begin to make more intentional improvements within a company.

And this might look like building relationships with backup vendors, strengthening communication across your teams, or even just creating simple contingency plans for common issues your teams encounter. These aren’t always costly changes, but they can make a huge difference when something actually goes wrong.

So I don’t think it takes major upfront investment in a financial sense, but it’s all about structure, relationships, and leaning on the community you currently have before major growth happens. It's more about how well you prepare with your teams and how adaptable your systems are over time.

As AI becomes more embedded in operations, how can leaders ensure that humans continue to add value instead of becoming bottlenecks in fast-moving systems?

I think it’s really important to recognize that AI is there to support people and not replace them. AI can help streamline processes and handle repetitive tasks, but there’s still a human element that can’t be replicated. And that’s where humans come into play. We need humans to program it-we often forget this.

Companies need to focus on positioning people where they can add the most value-interpreting data, managing expectations, consulting, strategizing, and making informed decisions. Because AI can’t fully replace judgment, context, and cultural nuance.

We see many companies adding AI on top of outdated processes. From your experience, why does this approach often create more complexity rather than real improvement?

From what I’ve seen, adding AI on top of an outdated process doesn’t actually solve the problem-it just makes it move faster and spreads inefficiency across the system. That’s why gaining insights from teams is key. If the foundation isn’t strong, introducing new technology can create even more confusion.

Instead of simplifying operations, it can add extra layers that teams have to navigate, which ultimately slows things down in a different way. In many cases, the issue isn’t the lack of technology-it’s that the process itself hasn’t been recalibrated.

I think the most effective approach is to take a step back, analyze the situation, simplify and improve the process first, and then introduce AI in a way that actually supports that system.

Automation is often seen as replacing jobs, but in industries facing labor shortages, it’s becoming essential. How should leaders reframe this conversation internally?

I believe the conversation around automation needs to shift from replacement to support. In a lot of operational environments, especially ones that are high-volume or fast-paced, teams are already stretched thin.

Automation, when used correctly, can help take pressure off by handling repetitive or time-consuming tasks, which allows people to focus on more meaningful work.

From my experience, it’s not about removing people-it’s about creating balance. In industries facing labor shortages, automation can actually help stabilize operations and improve consistency, rather than replace the human element entirely.

The way leaders frame it matters. When it’s positioned as a tool to support teams and improve their day-to-day experience, rather than something that threatens their role, it creates a very different level of trust and adoption.

Customers today have more choices than ever. How much does sustainability truly influence loyalty compared to price and convenience?

Sustainability definitely matters, but in most cases, it’s not the primary driver of customer decisions. From what I’ve seen, price and convenience tend to come first, especially in fast-moving or high-demand environments.

Where sustainability becomes more impactful is when those expectations are already being met. If a product or service is accessible, reliable, and competitively priced, then sustainability can influence loyalty and long-term perception.

I think customers want to feel like they’re making responsible choices, but not at the expense of their overall experience.

Looking ahead 5 to 10 years, what does a truly resilient, future-ready supply chain look like, and what should leaders start doing today to achieve it?

It's built with the understanding that disruptions aren’t the exception anymore. They’re part of reality. So the focus shifts from trying to prevent every issue to building systems that can adjust quickly when things change.

That means having better visibility across operations, stronger adaptability across teams, and using technology in a way that supports real-time decision-making, not just long-term planning. But just as important, it means continuing to invest in people in a way that strengthens execution on the ground.

For leaders today, it starts with being willing to step back and evaluate what’s actually working vs what just looks good on paper. Building flexibility into systems, listening to operational reality, and being intentional about how technology is implemented are all key steps toward creating something that can evolve over time.

In the long run, the companies that will be most successful aren’t the ones that are perfectly optimized-they’re the ones that are prepared to adapt.