Make-to-Order vs. Make-to-Stock
Make-to-order vs. make-to-stock describes the two basic strategies for when a company produces: with make-to-order (MTO) production only starts once a specific customer order arrives, whereas with make-to-stock (MTS) goods are produced to a demand forecast and shipped from inventory.
Make-to-order vs. make-to-stock describes the two fundamental strategies a company uses to tie the timing of its production to demand. With make-to-order (MTO), production only begins once a specific customer order is in hand – the company produces against a known order. With make-to-stock (MTS), by contrast, the company produces to inventory: based on a demand forecast, finished goods are created, put into stock and later shipped from that inventory. The decisive difference lies in whether the customer order sits at the start or only at the end of the value chain.
Neither approach is an all-or-nothing choice for an entire company; it is a decision made per item or product group. It determines how high inventory is, how quickly the company can deliver and how individually a product can be configured. Between the two poles lie hybrid forms such as assemble-to-order (customer-specific assembly from pre-built subassemblies) and engineer-to-order (design per order). Which strategy makes sense depends on variant diversity, replenishment lead time, demand variability and the delivery time customers will accept.
At a glance
- Make-to-order (MTO): production starts only after the customer order
- Make-to-stock (MTS): production to a forecast, delivery from inventory
- MTO minimizes finished-goods stock and offers high customization – but longer lead times
- MTS enables immediate delivery but ties up capital and carries demand risk
- Hybrid forms: assemble-to-order and engineer-to-order sit between the two poles
Make-to-order vs. make-to-stock: the two basic strategies
The core of any production strategy is the question of what triggers production. With make-to-order, the trigger is the specific customer order: only once an order with a known quantity, variant and due date exists is a production order created, material planned and production started. The customer is therefore known from the outset, and the product can be tailored individually to their requirements. The price for this is waiting time: the delivery time covers the entire throughput of procurement and production.
With make-to-stock, by contrast, the trigger is a forecast. The company estimates future demand – for instance from historical figures, seasonality and forecast – and produces to inventory independently of any single customer order. When an order arrives, it is served immediately from the finished-goods stock on hand. In the ideal case, the delivery time toward the customer thus drops to zero, because production was already completed before the order even came in.
The customer order decoupling point
Technically, the difference can be pinned to the customer order decoupling point. It marks the place in the value chain up to which work is done to a forecast, and from which the specific customer order takes control. With pure make-to-stock, this point lies right at the end – behind the finished goods on the shelf. With pure make-to-order, it lies right at the start, sometimes even before material procurement. Hybrid forms deliberately shift it to where variant diversity arises: standard subassemblies are produced to stock, while the customer-specific final assembly happens only against an order.
Advantages and disadvantages compared
Make-to-order excels at customization and tied-up capital. Because production only happens against an order, virtually no finished-goods stock arises that would have to be stored and financed. The demand risk – goods produced that nobody buys – largely disappears. At the same time, high variant diversity and customer-specific adaptations are easily possible, because each batch is planned individually anyway. The downside is the delivery time: the customer waits out the full throughput and procurement time. Utilization also fluctuates more, because it hangs directly on the irregular flow of incoming orders.
Make-to-stock scores on delivery capability and steady production. Immediate delivery from stock is a competitive advantage, and production can run in large, efficient lots smoothed over time, which lowers unit costs and setup effort. Against this stand two risks: capital tied up in inventory and the danger of producing past demand. If the forecast is off, excess stock, write-downs or – for perishable goods – loss can follow. Make-to-stock is therefore best suited to standardized items with stable, well-predictable demand.
When each strategy fits
The choice follows no dogma but rather the characteristics of the product and the market. Four factors are decisive above all: variant diversity, the predictability of demand, the ratio of production throughput time to the delivery time customers accept, and the value of the capital tied up. As a rule of thumb: the more individual, expensive and hard to forecast a product is, the more it favors make-to-order. The more standardized, cheaper and steadily demanded, the more it favors make-to-stock.
In practice, many companies combine both approaches across their range. Fast movers with stable demand are produced to stock so they are immediately available; special versions and rarely demanded variants run as make-to-order. An ABC and XYZ analysis helps segment the range by value and demand steadiness and assign each segment the fitting strategy. This produces a differentiated model rather than a blanket decision.
Assemble-to-order and engineer-to-order
Two important hybrid forms lie between the extremes. With assemble-to-order, standard subassemblies and components are held in stock and only assembled into the customer-specific variant once an order arrives – the classic example is a configurator for furniture or vehicles. Engineer-to-order goes even further: here even the design begins only with the order, for instance in machinery and plant engineering. Both forms deliberately shift the customer order decoupling point in order to combine short delivery times with high customization.
Make-to-order and make-to-stock in the ERP system
In the ERP system, the production strategy is usually stored as a procurement or planning type per item in the item master. It controls how the system reacts to demand. With order-based production, an incoming customer order generates production and purchase proposals directly via material requirements planning (MRP); production and procurement are firmly linked to the order. With make-to-stock, by contrast, the system plans against reorder point, safety stock and forecast: if inventory falls below the defined reorder point, a reorder-point method triggers a new production order – independently of any specific customer order.
Inventory plays a different role in the two models. For delivery capability under make-to-stock, the available-to-promise (ATP) check provides the reliable commitment on whether and when delivery from stock is possible. Under make-to-order, a capable-to-promise logic takes its place, calculating dates from free capacity and material availability. Modern ERP systems allow the strategy to be set per item or even per order and to map hybrid forms – so the same range can be steered in a differentiated way between make-to-stock and make-to-order.
DACH specifics and practice
The German-speaking Mittelstand is strongly shaped by make-to-order. The classic "hidden champion" in machinery, plant and special-machine engineering often produces on a customer-specific, project-based basis – frequently as engineer-to-order with long throughput times and high vertical integration. For these businesses, an ERP with a clean linkage of customer order, production order, routing and costing is decisive, because every order is recalculated individually from a business standpoint.
Retail and e-commerce, on the other hand, work predominantly make-to-stock or stock-held, because short delivery times are what decide the sale here. Many DACH companies therefore run a hybrid model and deliberately shift the customer order decoupling point to connect both worlds. It is important that the chosen strategy is mapped consistently in the master data, planning and scheduling of the ERP – only then do delivery commitments, inventory and costing stay aligned over the long term.
Example
Example: an office furniture manufacturer
A mid-sized office furniture manufacturer runs both strategies in parallel. Standard mobile pedestals in three finishes are fast movers with stable demand – they are produced make-to-stock. The ERP monitors inventory per variant against a reorder point; if it falls below, a production order for an economic lot size is created automatically. When a dealer orders, delivery happens immediately from stock, and the available-to-promise check commits the date to the day.
Height-adjustable desks with individual top size, edge color and cable routing, by contrast, run as make-to-order. Only with the customer order does the system create the production order, plan the special top with the supplier and schedule the assembly. The delivery time here is three weeks rather than immediate – but no finished-goods stock and no demand risk arises for the many possible variants. Both models run in the same ERP, controlled solely via the planning type in the item master.
Frequently asked questions
Matching ERP systems
Related services
Questions about Make-to-Order vs. Make-to-Stock in your ERP project?
We advise vendor-neutrally – and implement it ourselves on request.