Redistribution: use the stock you already own
The most expensive inventory mistake is buying more of what the network already has — in the wrong place. Location-level imbalance means lost sales and overstock exist at the same time, on the same SKU.
Why it happens
Central reports show enough network stock while individual locations are empty. The gap only appears at SKU-location level.
Nobody owns the decision; by the time someone notices, an emergency purchase already went out — adding stock to a network that had enough.
Moving three units across the country costs more than it earns. Without minimum line values and per-location limits, redistribution creates logistics noise instead of sales.
What good control looks like
Surface imbalance daily: who is below target, who holds unwanted overstock of the same SKU
Generate concrete transfer lists — with minimum order values, line limits and receiving-capacity caps so transfers stay economical
Move excess up to the receiving location's allowed level, never above it
Only then buy: new purchase orders cover what redistribution cannot
Horizon runs redistribution as a scheduled, rule-based process: excess from unwanted-overstock zones flows to locations below target before any new purchasing, automatically or with one-click confirmation.
Related: Glossary of inventory-flow terms · Horizon vs the alternatives · Value Calculator
Common questions
When is redistribution better than ordering more?
Doesn't moving stock around get expensive?
See this on your own data.
The free demo begins with a real simulation on your history — where sales, cash and time are leaking, and what the system would have done instead.