The study emphasizes that gateway decisions should not be based solely on ocean rates or sailing time. While trans-Pacific routes to the West Coast are shorter at sea, researchers found that congestion, cargo rehandling, and inland transportation complexity often introduce delays and variability. In contrast, Savannah's efficient port operations, on-terminal rail service, and direct interstate access help offset longer ocean voyages with faster inland movement and greater predictability.

Researchers analyzed vessel and inland transportation data from ten Asian ports to the three Southeastern markets. Their findings showed that Savannah's reliable port processing and inland logistics significantly reduce congestion exposure and transit variability, making it a more dependable gateway for shippers seeking consistent delivery performance.

The study was conducted by Georgia Tech faculty and PhD students at the Institute's Physical Internet Center and reinforces previous Atlanta-focused research demonstrating similar benefits of East Coast routing. The findings support the growing role of the Port of Savannah as a strategic gateway for U.S. supply chains serving inland Southeast markets.

Read the original press release from the Georgia Ports Authority here:
Georgia Tech research shows East Coast gateway best choice for Atlanta, Memphis and Nashville
 

Drawing on his expertise in supply chain economics and transportation systems, Gaffney discussed how disruptions in global energy markets can ripple through logistics networks, ultimately affecting consumers and businesses across Georgia and the Southeast.

Read the full Atlanta News First article and watch the related video: Experts Warn War With Iran Could Raise Costs, Georgia Fuel Prices Leading the Way

For the 36th year in a row, Georgia Tech’s H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISyE) has earned the No. 1 spot in the 2026 Best Engineering Schools ranking released by U.S. News & World Report.   

Nguyen began his academic journey as an undergraduate at Minerva University, where he studied in a different country nearly every semester. This experience abroad shaped his approach to problem-solving. After graduating, Nguyen remained passionate about mathematics but became interested in applying theory to real-world challenges.

“I still wanted to do math, but I wanted to apply my mathematical research to some tangible applications,” Nguyen said. “I wanted to see the meaning behind my research.”

That desire, along with ISyE’s long-standing top national ranking in industrial engineering, led Nguyen to pursue his doctoral studies at Georgia Tech. His primary research focuses on applied probability, with an emphasis on bridging theoretical models and practical systems.

Nguyen received the IBM Fellowship in recognition of his ongoing research. One of his current research projects examines how far a process is from the steady state and seeks to better understand the finite-time behavior of the system and to make accurate real-time decisions. This work has meaningful applications in many real-world service systems models, such as the load balancing algorithms found in data centers and ride-hailing systems.

In additional his work in applied probability, Nguyen is exploring ways to improve artificial intelligence reasoning. His research investigates how large language models can verify their own outputs using mathematical heuristics and training data. By identifying and correcting discrepancies before displaying results to the user, the system could become more accurate and reliable. 

Nguyen contributes much to the mentorship of his advisor, Professor Siva Theja Magulur.

“I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Siva Theja, for supporting me through this journey,” he said. “He's an extremely caring, insightful, and attentive professor. He's also very supportive of me pursuing the AI reasoning research at Google DeepMind, although this is not his main research. Over the years, I have learned a lot from him as his student.”

The IBM Fellowship is the latest in a series of achievements for Nguyen. In 2024 and 2025, respectively, he was part of a Google DeepMind team that earned silver and gold medals in the International Mathematical Olympiad. He also won second place at the ACM SIGMETRICS 2025 Student Research Contest for his work on the finite-time behavior of queuing systems.

As he continues his doctoral studies, Nguyen remains focused on advancing his research and contributing to both theoretical and applied fields.

We recently wrapped our semi‑annual industry advisory board meeting, where a core element of the agenda is a set of "hot topics" sourced in advance from our member companies, curated, and facilitated to reflect what is most top of mind in the field. This cycle, one of those topics focused on the impact of AI on supply chain technology investment.

What began as a discussion on technology quickly surfaced a broader issue:

AI is not just changing supply chains—it is raising the standard for execution, and in doing so, redefining what it takes to sustain a brand.

When Capability Becomes Cheap

Within that discussion, a simple example sparked debate. Most of us would trust a platform like DocuSign without hesitation. It has earned that trust through reliability, security, and consistent performance.

But what if a new entrant—call it “FredSign”—offered similar functionality, powered by AI, at lower cost and with comparable features? Would you use it?

The room split. Some argued that established brands are durable because of the trust they have built over time. Others pushed back, suggesting that AI‑enabled challengers could close that gap faster than expected, making brand less relevant.

The discussion quickly moved beyond software to a broader question:

In a world where AI lowers the cost of building capability, does trust shift from brand to performance—or does brand become even more important?

Brand as a Promise

From a supply chain perspective, this is no longer theoretical. It is already happening.

At its core, a brand is a promise. For product companies, that promise is built on quality, consistency, and the experience of using the product over time. For supply chain technology and service providers, it is grounded in reliability, security, and confidence in execution.

Historically, brand has been reinforced by performance—but also protected by time, scale, and familiarity.

AI is changing that balance.

Lower Barriers, Higher Expectations

On one hand, AI lowers barriers to entry. New entrants can replicate functionality faster, improve user experiences, and target specific gaps in incumbent offerings.

In supply chain technology, this is particularly relevant. Many organizations have made significant, long‑term investments in systems that have not always delivered as expected. That creates an opening for AI‑enabled providers to enter through narrow use cases, solve specific problems better, and establish a foothold. Over time, they build credibility.

But there is a second dimension that is more immediate—and more consequential.

AI Raises the Execution Standard

One way to frame this is simple: data is a terrible thing to waste.

For years, supply chains have generated vast amounts of data across planning systems, transportation networks, warehouses, and customer interactions. Much of that data has been underutilized—captured, stored, but not fully leveraged to anticipate risk or improve outcomes.

That is changing.

The capability now exists—and is rapidly maturing—to sense, interpret, and act on that data in ways that were not previously practical. Risks can be identified earlier. Disruptions can be predicted. Corrective actions can be taken before the customer ever feels the impact.

From Disruption to Preventability

Over the past week, in the span of just six days and four unrelated conversations with members of my network, I heard a series of examples that all pointed to this shift.

• A global food company managing risk tied to a critical supplier whose quality issues could impact multiple major brands—raising the question of whether AI could have surfaced a near sole‑source dependency earlier.
• An e‑commerce retailer using machine learning to reduce theft and damage in its fulfillment network, improving the customer experience.
• An organization proactively shifting its fulfillment partner mix based on AI‑driven insights into which nodes can and cannot handle surge capacity.
• A high‑end clothing shipment arriving wet due to a fulfillment breakdown—where the loss was not just the product, but a time‑sensitive moment that could not be recovered.
• A consumer receiving an empty box after successfully purchasing a limited‑release product that could not be replaced.

These are not isolated anecdotes. The common thread is not disruption—it is preventability.

As AI enables earlier detection of risk, better prediction of disruptions, and faster response to exceptions, the tolerance for failure is declining. Companies are no longer judged simply on whether something went wrong. They are judged on whether it should have been avoided.

Brand Is the Delivered Experience

From a brand perspective, that is a fundamental shift.

A product brand may invest heavily in innovation and customer engagement. But if the product arrives damaged, late, or not at all, the customer does not distinguish between the brand owner and the supply chain behind it.

There is only one experience—and therefore only one brand.

In an AI‑enabled supply chain, failure is no longer just a risk—it is increasingly a choice.

The Weakest Node Defines the Brand

A brand is now only as strong as its weakest node.

That node may be a supplier, a logistics provider, a fulfillment partner, or a technology platform. Many sit outside the direct control of the brand owner, yet their performance is inseparable from the customer’s perception of the brand.

AI makes it possible to identify and address these weak points—but it also makes it more apparent when companies fail to do so.

Implications for the Supply Chain Ecosystem

This dynamic extends directly to platform and software providers. In an AI‑enabled environment, it is no longer sufficient for supply chain technology to be stable or functionally adequate. It must evolve—continuously—to sense risk earlier, enable better decisions, and improve execution outcomes. If it does not, its limitations will be exposed quickly, and alternatives will emerge.

Technology providers are not insulated by their brand; they are judged by the outcomes they enable. Their brand will strengthen if their platforms improve execution—and erode if they do not.

Product companies must use AI to protect the customer experience end‑to‑end. Logistics providers must adopt AI to remain credible partners. Technology providers must evolve their platforms to meet a higher execution standard.

If one part of the system advances while another does not, the gap will be visible—and acted upon quickly.

Winners and losers are being judged daily.

What This Means for Leaders

None of this suggests that brand is no longer important. In high‑trust, high‑risk environments—contracts, financial transactions, healthcare, and other sensitive use cases—brand remains critical.

Even in this environment, trust must be continuously reinforced through performance. Leaders must clearly understand what underpins their brand. Brand is not an asset to be protected; it is the result of consistently delivering on a promise. Any performance gaps must be addressed before others move in. AI‑enabled challengers will not challenge strengths—they will target weaknesses.

Finally, leaders must elevate their ecosystem. Brand performance is now inseparable from partner performance. That requires greater visibility, tighter integration, and higher expectations—not only internally, but across suppliers, logistics providers, and technology partners.

One Question to Answer Now

This execution dimension is only one part of how AI is reshaping brand—but it is already decisive.

A great product can still win. A strong brand can still endure. But in an AI‑driven world, where disruptions can be anticipated and failures mitigated, the margin for error is disappearing.

And in many cases—especially where the purchase is infrequent or the moment is critical—you only get one shot. At the conclusion of our discussion, one participant framed it simply:

What is our secret sauce—and what are we doing to build on it?

That is the question every supply chain leader should be answering now.

Because in an AI‑enabled world, your brand will be defined by what your system consistently delivers.

Introduction

This year has felt like a lifetime in the Generative AI (GenAI) world. Tools, capabilities, and best practices are shifting monthly, sometimes weekly. For supply chain professionals, the message is clear: ongoing development is not optional. Like lean, analytics, or S&OP in prior decades, GenAI proficiency is quickly becoming a differentiator. The question is not if you’ll integrate GenAI into your workflow, but how quickly and effectively. 

The Evolution of GenAI in 2025

When we look back to January, it’s striking how much progress has been made in less than a year. Early in 2025, the conversation centered on agentic AI and larger models. GPT-5 and Claude 4 improved reasoning and context windows, while OpenAI introduced ChatGPT Agent in preview, able to carry out bounded multi-step tasks like retrieving files, browsing the web, and drafting structured outputs. In supply chain, this translated into early experiments with automating shipment steps or running contract reviews in a single query — tasks that were pilot-level at best in January.

By mid-year, multimodal capabilities and enterprise copilots began shifting from concept to daily use. Users could combine text, image, and voice inputs to detect defects or summarize complex documents, and copilots became embedded inside SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, and Google platforms. For the first time, GenAI wasn’t just a tool "off to the side" but something integrated directly into the systems supply chain professionals rely on.

In the second half of the year, new capabilities started layering on: memory, specialized small models, and synthetic data with digital twins. Memory allowed copilots to recall context from prior chats or S&OP cycles, reducing rework. Domain-tuned models made GenAI lighter, cheaper, and faster for logistics, procurement, and planning tasks. And digital twin integration allowed organizations to stress-test networks under disruption scenarios, from weather to labor shortages.

Enterprises also moved closer to operations with AI at the edge, using IoT data for predictive maintenance or real-time routing. At the same time, guardrails and compliance became a central topic, with more organizations creating clear "green/yellow/red" tiers for safe use. And in Q4, collaboration AI and hybrid architectures came to the forefront — copilots that can negotiate contracts in multiple languages, and architectures that blend closed and open-source models to balance sovereignty, cost, and security.

For mainstream individual users, the picture is simpler but still powerful. Anyone with ChatGPT Plus or Copilot today can take advantage of:

• Memory and custom instructions to save preferences and formats across sessions.
• Project-only memory (rolling out) to organize work by context.
• Agent previews like Operator to see how automation might work on bounded tasks.
• Connectors and file uploads to bring internal data into conversations. 

For leaders, the focus is on policy, safe pilots, and scaling. They are:

• Sponsoring agent experiments in low-risk domains (like supplier alerts).
• Embedding copilots in enterprise systems for daily planning and reporting.
• Formalizing AI use policies so employees know what’s encouraged, conditional, and off-limits.

The net result: what started in January as experimentation has, by October, become a layered landscape. Individual users now have practical tools to reclaim time, while leaders are piloting more ambitious integrations and building the governance to make adoption sustainable.

1. Action Planning is Critical

The pace of change makes a one-and-done training activity insufficient. Think of GenAI skills like fitness: it requires steady reps over time. Professionals who set quarterly development goals — experimenting with new tools, building prompt libraries, testing workflows — will not only stay current but pull ahead.

💡 Try This Quarter:

• Build a custom prompt library for routine tasks (e.g., supplier follow-ups, KPI summaries).
• Test one open-source tool such as LangChain or Haystack.
• Use AI to summarize two recent meetings and validate output with your notes. 

2. Prompt Maturity is the New Literacy

I’ve personally learned the most about prompting by asking ChatGPT to critique my style against a 12-step framework. The feedback gave me a process improvement plan I still use today. Prompt maturity isn’t abstract — it’s a measurable, improvable skill.

💡 Applied step: Rewrite one work prompt per week by climbing the ladder. 

3. Unlocking Personal Productivity

One of the fastest returns from GenAI comes from personal productivity. In our short courses this year, I’ve seen learners gain comfort and lower stress as they practice more with the tools. Many reclaimed time by using GenAI for emails, presentations, meeting notes, and data prep.

While the list of GenAI time-saving strategies is broad, some uses are already mainstream and validated by thousands of professionals. The table below organizes these strategies into categories, provides guidance on how to accomplish them, and highlights common watch-outs to ensure they deliver value without risk.

💡 Try this week: Track one workflow where AI saved time and estimate the hours reclaimed.

4. Critical Thinking: Ironically More Important than Ever

We wrote about critical thinking and added it to our curriculum after studies raised concerns about overreliance on AI. The smarter the tools become, the more important it is to validate their outputs.

💡 Applied step: Take one AI output this week and run it through the checklist — you’ll see both strengths and blind spots.

5. Advocating for Strategy and Guardrails

We’ve seen firsthand how AI policies can evolve. One major retailer shifted in less than a year from a rigid “only data scientists experiment” model to encouraging all employees to try safe versions of multiple LLMs. This shift shows why professionals should advocate for strategy and guardrails that evolve with the technology.

💡 Ask your manager: Which of our daily tasks fall into green, yellow, and red today? 

6. Agents: Early but Essential

Many industry partners are actively testing agents. Our software partners are hitting singles and doubles now, with bigger “home run” opportunities still developing. Agents aren’t fully reliable yet, but they are advancing quickly and will increasingly appear in ERP, TMS, and WMS platforms. 

In practice, most organizations today sit between Level 1 (Exploratory) and Level 2 (Task-Specific Agents), with early pilots pushing into Level 3 (Augmented Workflows). Tech-forward enterprises — particularly in retail, e-commerce, and global manufacturing — are building domain-specific agents for forecasting, procurement support, and transportation planning, often embedded inside ERP or planning platforms. These companies are experimenting with multi-agent coordination but keep humans firmly in the loop. By contrast, mainstream companies are still largely in the exploratory stage: individuals using general copilots for drafting documents or ad hoc analysis, without enterprise integration, security controls, or governance. The gap is widening — forward-leaning firms are developing playbooks for orchestrated workflows, while many organizations are just beginning to set policies and figure out where AI fits safely into their operations.

Looking ahead, Level 4 (Collaborative Automation) is where the near-term breakthroughs will happen. In the next 3–5 years, we can expect multi-agent orchestration to become a practical tool for managing recurring disruptions — think transportation rerouting during weather events or automated supplier alerts when delivery milestones are missed. Early adoption will occur in large, tech-forward enterprises with strong governance and secure infrastructure. Level 5 (Autonomous Resilience) remains aspirational: while the vision of end-to-end supply chain automation is compelling, regulatory hurdles, trust, and explainability challenges mean human oversight will remain essential. The more realistic trajectory is that enterprises will selectively automate narrow disruption scenarios while maintaining tight human control, with broader autonomy coming only as governance, standards, and trust mechanisms mature.

💡 Applied step: Identify one repetitive process in your work that could be a candidate for an agent. 

7. Human in the Loop: Non-Negotiable

Competition has improved model quality this year — but hallucinations and memory issues remain. That’s why “human in the loop” is not just a principle; it’s operational reality. AI is still an assistant, not a replacement.

💡 Applied step: Write down one checkpoint you always apply before sharing AI outputs.

Conclusion

These observations — from teaching courses, updating curriculum, and watching partners experiment — motivated this article. GenAI is evolving at extraordinary speed, and our profession must evolve with it. Build your plan, refine your prompts, reclaim time, apply critical thinking, advocate for strategy, explore agents, and always keep the human in the loop. Those who do will thrive in 2026 and beyond.