Warehouse performance improvement programs: What works best?
When it comes to boosting DC performance, are you better off focusing on process or technology? According to a recent study, the answer depends on whether you're a shipper or a 3PL.
It's the rare warehouse these days that hasn't engaged in some type of cost cutting or performance improvement program. Some have turned to technology in a bid to streamline operations. Others have taken the process route, putting programs like continuous improvement plans in place. Still others have changed up their personnel (for example, bringing in highly effective managers to run their facilities), pulled up stakes and moved to a location with lower labor costs or tax advantages, or in the case of shippers, outsourced their warehousing operations.
Which of these changes is likely to produce the biggest payoff? To find out, ARC partnered with DC Velocity and eft (eyefortransport) to conduct a study that asked this core question: "Over the last five years, what change led to the greatest improvement in distribution costs per unit shipped?" The survey was conducted among 150 valid respondents from a variety of sectors: 34 percent hailed from the wholesale business, 33.3 percent from third-party logistics service providers (3PLs), 14.7 percent from manufacturing, and 14.0 percent from retail. The remaining 4 percent fell into the "other" category. Slightly over half the facilities profiled in the study (54.3 percent) were located in North America, while the remainder were in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
In considering the results that follow, readers should keep in mind that the benefits reflect what respondents identified as their "most effective" tactic for reducing costs over the past five years. The way this question is worded means that these are atypical results. These should not be considered the results the typical company would get from implementing technology or a process change program. Rather, this is an analysis comparing the relative benefits of highly successful technology projects to highly successful process programs.
DIFFERENT STROKES
So where have companies gotten the most bang for their buck when it comes to DC cost-cutting initiatives? As it turns out, the answer depends on whether the company is a shipper or a 3PL.
For the shippers who participated in the survey, technology projects proved to be the hands-down winner. Nearly half (48 percent) reported that their greatest improvements had come from a technology implementation (most commonly one involving warehouse software). Process was a distant second, cited by 25 percent of the shipper respondents. Trailing behind were outsourcing (14 percent), people (9 percent), and location (4 percent). (See Exhibit 1.)
It was a different story altogether with the 3PLs. Among these respondents, well over half (59.2 percent) credited process improvements with producing the best results.
As for why the 3PLs would choose process over technology, there are a number of good reasons for that, all relating to the nature of the business. For starters, there's the issue of payback. Third parties that run dedicated facilities for their clients often lease those warehouses for the length of a contract with a customer. Common lease lengths are three to four years. Problem is, the return on investment (ROI) for a technology project may well exceed that. For instance, some types of material handling equipment have historically had a payback period of four to five years. It's not hard to see why a 3PL would be reluctant to make that investment.
Further, bringing in technology isn't always an option for 3PLs. For instance, if a 3PL agrees to operate a warehouse that the shipper had built and staffed, the 3PL will inherit the technology already in place. So if the warehouse is already using, say, a warehouse management system (WMS), the 3PL won't have the opportunity to cut costs by introducing warehousing software.
Although technology projects may not be a slam dunk for 3PLs, process improvements are a natural. Large 3PLs report that continuous improvement programs tend to be high on potential customers' "want lists" and almost always appear on their requests for proposal (RFPs). These capabilities, according to one top 3PL executive, "are table stakes. You have to be able to show you possess a continuous improvement program to be in the game."
GETTING RESULTS
All this raises the obvious question, What kinds of results have these projects produced? To get an idea of the extent of the savings, the study asked, "How much have your distribution costs per unit shipped decreased based upon the implementation of [your] technology or process project? Please answer for the first full year after the shakeout period was completed."
As Exhibit 2 shows, both process changes and technology implementations produced solid results (the survey subsamples weren't large enough to provide solid data for the people, location, or outsourcing options). But it's worth noting that technology projects performed both better and worse than process projects—they were more likely to produce savings of 10 percent or more but also more likely to result in savings of 1 percent or less.
Interestingly, for both technology implementations and process programs, we found a correlation between results and warehouse complexity. The more complex the warehouse, as measured either by the value of goods shipped or the percentage of broken-case or full-case picking, the more likely respondents were to report that their project had resulted in distribution-cost-per-unit savings of greater than 8 percent.
As for the initiatives themselves, the most common technology projects were software implementations, rather than material handling equipment or other types of installations. Voice recognition and labor management system (LMS) implementations tended to produce bigger savings than warehouse management systems did. However, it's important to note that both voice and labor management systems are often built on a WMS platform and rely on that system to direct their operations. That is, without a WMS in place, it's much more difficult to implement voice and LMS technology, and more difficult to get stellar results from those implementations.
When it came to process programs, continuous improvement projects were the most common, representing more than two-thirds (67 percent) of all process initiatives.
EFFECT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE
Of course, cost is not the only measure of a project's success. If cost savings come at the expense of service, it would be hard to argue that a project was truly successful. To get a better idea of how these technology and process projects had affected customer service, we asked respondents whether their programs had resulted in changes to on-time shipping performance. For purposes of the survey, we defined orders shipped "on time" as orders shipped at the planned time ("shipped" meaning off the dock and in transit).
As Exhibit 3 indicates, the respondents' improvement initiatives posed very little threat to service. Projects that improved companies' cost position usually improved their on-time shipping performance as well.
As for how the two main types of projects stacked up, once again, technology projects performed both better and worse than process projects—they were more likely to boost on-time shipping by over 5 percent and more likely to result in a drop in performance. None of the "process" respondents reported that service had deteriorated as a result of their project.
Based on improvements in on-time shipping, it's not surprising that high percentages of both technology and process respondents reported better performance against the "perfect order" metric: 75 percent and 66 percent, respectively. (To be considered "perfect," an order must arrive complete, be delivered on time, arrive free of damage, and be accompanied by the correct invoice and other documentation.) Similarly, 82 percent of process respondents and 64 percent of technology respondents reported improvements in order cycle time.
Another measure of customer service is lost sales due to stockouts in the warehouse. Forty percent of technology respondents and 44 percent of process respondents reported that their performance against this metric had improved as a result of their project.
Successful projects tend to be successful on multiple dimensions. Exhibit 4 indicates some of the other benefits respondents realized from their warehouse improvement programs. In many cases, technology projects and process projects produced essentially the same results. There were a few differences, however. For instance, technology projects substantially outperformed their process counterparts when it came to the warehouse's ability to implement other technologies in the future. For their part, process projects outperformed technology with respect to executive time devoted to overseeing warehousing and supplier relationships.
PAYBACK, STARTUP ISSUES, AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
A payback period is a classic way to measure the success of a project (a payback period being the length of time required for a company to recoup its initial investment through cost savings). In this area, process clearly beat technology. With process programs, over 20 percent of respondents reported that they had been able to launch a program at minimal cost.
Of course, payback would logically be related to how a warehouse was performing before the technology or process program was introduced. If a warehouse is significantly underperforming, the greater the chances that a project will result in significant improvements.
Of the two groups, the process respondents were more likely to say their warehouses had been "significantly underperforming" before the project began; 20 percent of process respondents said that had been the case, compared with only 11 percent of technology respondents.
As for the startup process, ARC asked respondents whether they had experienced "significant issues" in launching the project or program. Not surprisingly, perhaps, software projects were more likely to be associated with startup glitches (60.7 percent) than process projects (56 percent) were. Technology projects based on the implementation of equipment—as opposed to software—created the fewest significant issues.
Another way to assess the success of a project is to determine whether it resulted in a one-time cost reduction or in ongoing distribution cost savings. In this area, process projects appeared to perform just slightly better than technology projects. That finding came as something of a surprise given that the most common type of process project was the implementation of a continuous improvement program and the whole point of these initiatives is to drive gains on an ongoing basis.
SUCCESS FACTORS
Finally, to gain some insight into what worked and what didn't when it came to implementing a warehouse improvement program, ARC asked respondents what factors had contributed to their project's success. With respect to technology projects, the respondents identified two factors as the most important: 1) the process changes the company put in place to support the technology, and 2) the training and culture-change program the company implemented to support the implementation.
As for the process projects, respondents said the biggest factor in a continuous improvement project's success was the company's culture—that is, whether it had already committed to a continuous improvement regimen. This should probably come as no surprise. When you talk to companies that are proud of their continuous improvement capabilities, they're sure to tell you that for them, operational excellence (OpX) is no "one and done" deal; it's something they've embedded into their culture.
Sean Webb’s background is in finance, not package engineering, but he sees that as a plus—particularly when it comes to explaining the financial benefits of automated packaging to clients. Webb is currently vice president of national accounts at Sparck Technologies, a company that manufactures automated solutions that produce right-sized packaging, where he is responsible for the sales and operational teams. Prior to joining Sparck, he worked in the financial sector for PEAK6, E*Trade, and ATD, including experience as an equity trader.
Webb holds a bachelor’s degree from Michigan State and an MBA in finance from Western Michigan University.
Q: How would you describe the current state of the packaging industry?
A: The packaging and e-commerce industries are rapidly evolving, driven by shifting consumer preferences, technological advancements, and a heightened focus on sustainability. The packaging sector is increasingly prioritizing eco-friendly materials to reduce waste, while integrating smart technologies and customizable solutions to enhance brand engagement.
The e-commerce industry continues to expand, fueled by the convenience of online shopping and accelerated by the pandemic. Advances in artificial intelligence and augmented reality are enhancing the online shopping experience, while consumer expectations for fast delivery and seamless transactions are reshaping logistics and operations.
In addition, with the growth in environmental and sustainability regulatory initiatives—like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws and a New Jersey bill that would require retailers to use right-sized shipping boxes—right-sized packaging is playing a crucial role in reducing packaging waste and box volume.
Q: You came from the financial and equity markets. How has that been an advantage in your work as an executive at Sparck?
A: My background has allowed me to effectively communicate the incredible ROI [return on investment] and value that right-size automated packaging provides in a way that financial teams understand. Investment in this technology provides significant labor, transportation, and material savings that typically deliver a positive ROI in six to 18 months.
Q: What are the advantages to using automated right-sized packaging equipment?
A: By automating the packaging process to create right-sized boxes, facilities can boost productivity by streamlining operations and reducing manual handling. This leads to greater operational efficiency as automated systems handle tasks with precision and speed, minimizing downtime.
The use of right-sized packaging also results in substantial labor savings, as less labor is required for packaging tasks. In addition, these systems support scalability, allowing facilities to easily adapt to increased order volumes and evolving needs without compromising performance.
Q: How can automation help ease the labor problems associated with time-consuming pack-out operations?
A: Not only has the cost of labor increased dramatically, but finding a consistent labor force to keep up with the constant fluctuations around peak seasons is very challenging. Typically, one manual laborer can pack at a rate of 20 to 35 packages per hour. Our CVP automated packaging solution can pack up to 1,100 orders per hour utilizing a fully integrated system. This system not only creates a right-sized box, but also accurately weighs it, captures its dimensions, and adds the necessary carrier information.
Q: Beyond material savings, are there other advantages for transportation and warehouse functions in using right-sized packaging?
A: Yes. By creating smaller boxes, right-sizing enables more parcels to fit on a truck, leading to significant shipping and transportation savings. This also results in reduced CO2 emissions, as fewer truckloads are required. In addition, parcels with right-sized packaging are less prone to damage, and automation helps minimize errors.
In a warehouse setting, smaller packages are easier to convey and sort. Using a fully integrated system that combines multiple functions into a smaller footprint can also lead to operational space savings.
Q: Can you share any details on the typical ROI and the savings associated with packaging automation?
A: Three-dimensional right-sized packaging automation boosts productivity significantly, leading to increased overall revenue. Labor savings average 88%, and transportation savings accrue with each right-sized box. In addition, material savings from less wasteful use of corrugated packaging enhance the return on investment for companies. Together, these typically deliver returns in under 18 months, with some projects achieving ROI in as little as six months. These savings can total millions of dollars for businesses.
Q: How can facility managers convince corporate executives that automated packaging technology is a good investment for their operation?
A: We like to take a data-driven approach and utilize the actual data from the customer to understand the right fit. Using those results, we utilize our ROI tool to accurately project the savings, ROI, IRR (internal rate of return), and NPV (net present value) that facility managers can then use to [elicit] the support needed to make a good investment for their operation.
Q: Could you talk a little about the enhancements you’ve recently made to your automated solutions?
A: Sparck has introduced a number of enhancements to its packaging solutions, including fluting corrugate that supports packages of various weights and sizes, allowing the production of ultra-slim boxes with a minimum height of 28mm (1.1 inches). This innovation revolutionizes e-commerce packaging by enabling smaller parcels to fit through most European mailboxes, optimizing space in transit and increasing throughput rates for automated orders.
In addition, Sparck’s new real-time data monitoring tools provide detailed machine performance insights through various software solutions, allowing businesses to manage and optimize their packaging operations. These developments offer significant delivery performance improvements and cost savings globally.
Mid-marketorganizations are confident that adopting AI applications can deliver up to fourfold returns within 12 months, but first they have to get over obstacles like gaps in workforce readiness, data governance, and tech infrastructure, according to a study from Seattle consulting firm Avanade.
The report found that 85% of businesses are expressing concern over losing competitive ground without rapid AI adoption, and 53% of them expect to increase their budgets for gen AI projects by up to 25%. But despite that enthusiasm, nearly half are stuck at business case (48%) or proof of concept (44%) stage.
The results come from “Avanade Trendlines: AI Value Report 2025,” which includes two surveys conducted by the market research firms McGuire Research Services and Vanson Bourne. Conducted in in August and September 2024, they encompass responses from a total of 4,100 IT decision makers and senior business decision makers across Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, UK, and US.
Additional results showed that 76% of respondents state that poor data quality and governance inhibits their AI progress. To overcome that, companies are stepping up investments in that area, with 44% planning to implement new data platforms and 41% setting governance standards. And to support the scaling of AI, budgets will focus on data and analytics (27%), automation (17%), and security and cyber resilience (15%).
"Mid-market leaders are at a defining moment with AI—where investments must not only boost efficiency but ignite future innovation and sustainable growth," Rodrigo Caserta, CEO of Avanade, said in a release. "The tension between cost-cutting and growth ambitions shows the AI value equation is still being worked out. Productivity with AI isn't just about doing things faster; it's about reimagining work itself. People are central to this shift, requiring workforce alignment, clear communication, and new training. Leaders must rethink how they support collaboration, measure productivity, and ultimately, assess the true value AI brings to their organizations."
Editor's note:This article was revised on November 13 to correct the site of Avanade's headquarters; it is located in Seattle.
That result came from the company’s “GEP Global Supply Chain Volatility Index,” an indicator tracking demand conditions, shortages, transportation costs, inventories, and backlogs based on a monthly survey of 27,000 businesses. The October index number was -0.39, which was up only slightly from its level of -0.43 in September.
Researchers found a steep rise in slack across North American supply chains due to declining factory activity in the U.S. In fact, purchasing managers at U.S. manufacturers made their strongest cutbacks to buying volumes in nearly a year and a half, indicating that factories in the world's largest economy are preparing for lower production volumes, GEP said.
Elsewhere, suppliers feeding Asia also reported spare capacity in October, albeit to a lesser degree than seen in Western markets. Europe's industrial plight remained a key feature of the data in October, as vendor capacity was significantly underutilized, reflecting a continuation of subdued demand in key manufacturing hubs across the continent.
"We're in a buyers' market. October is the fourth straight month that suppliers worldwide reported spare capacity, with notable contractions in factory demand across North America and Europe, underscoring the challenging outlook for Western manufacturers," Todd Bremer, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "President-elect Trump inherits U.S. manufacturers with plenty of spare capacity while in contrast, China's modest rebound and strong expansion in India demonstrate greater resilience in Asia."
Ocean freight liner Hapag-Lloyd has ordered 24 new container ships through $4 billion in contracts with two Chinese shipyards, saying the investment will continue to modernize and decarbonize its fleet.
Half the order will include 12 vessels with a capacity of 16,800 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) to be built by Yangzijiang Shipbuilding Group, and will expand the Dutch company’s capacity. The other 12 ships with a capacity of 9,200 TEU each will be made by New Times Shipbuilding Company Ltd. and will replace aging vessels. Hapag-Lloyd’s current fleet includes 287 container ships with a total transport capacity of 2.2 million TEU.
Set for delivery between 2027 and 2029, the ships will all feature low-emission, high-pressure liquefied gas dual-fuel engines that are extremely fuel-efficient, the company said. In addition, these vessels can be operated with ammonia fuel or with biomethane, which can reduce CO2e emissions by up to 95% compared to conventional propulsion systems.
“This investment is one of the largest in the recent history of Hapag-Lloyd, and it represents a significant milestone for our company as it pursues the goals of its Strategy 2030, such as to grow while also modernizing and decarbonizing our fleet. Operating a fleet of more efficient vessels will also enhance our competitive position, and thanks to the increase in capacity, we will continue to offer our customers a global, high-quality product,” Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Hapag-Lloyd AG, said in a release.
The company says its Strategy 2030 follows the direction of the 1.5-degree target of the Paris Agreement. It plans to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions from fleet operations by around one third by 2030 compared to 2022, and to reach net-zero fleet operation by 2045.
2024 has been a bumpy ride for many parts of the material handling equipment industry. It’s not necessarily that orders have been weak; it’s just that they aren’t up to the levels seen during the heyday of the pandemic-induced warehouse expansions. One of the brighter spots has been the robotics and automation sector, which has benefited from warehouse leaders’ continuing struggles with worker shortages and increased labor costs—both of which can be addressed through the judicious application of automated systems.
As we do every year, we recently gathered experts from the robotics and automation industry to weigh in on both the challenges facing the market and the opportunities that lie ahead. Here’s what they said.
Participants (in alphabetical order):
BART CERA President & Chief Executive Officer Vargo
Q: WHAT DOES 2025 LOOK LIKE FOR THE AUTOMATION INDUSTRY?
Stanislas Normand – Exotec: I expect to see growth in automation investments in 2025 relative to 2024. The reality is that, despite the challenging economic environment, the underlying pressure to automate is still there. Businesses are still challenged by the overreliance on manual labor and growing customer expectations. For many, it is becoming a bottleneck for growth that can no longer be ignored. While it’s true that a lot of 2024 projects ended up being pushed [out], the need for automation is still very high, and we are currently seeing a really strong pipeline of projects in 2025.
Bart Cera – Vargo: 2024 was a “weird” year in that many companies struggled to make decisions to proceed with their investment plans even though the stock market was doing well and corporate earnings were generally up, with positive forecasts for the future. I think the looming inflationary pressures and uncertainty around monetary policy [and] changes to interest rates left a lot of folks sitting on cash and on the sidelines. It’s not too different from the consumer side—it is tough to buy when prices are up, and borrowing is expensive. With inflation softening and seemingly under control and the Fed’s recent interest rate cut, which should be expansionary, our industry should see a significant uptick in automation and larger CapEx project spends for 2025.
Andrea Pongolini – E80: We are seeing robust growth fueled by a strong foundation of repeat customers who continue to trust and rely on our solutions. One of the most prominent trends is the increasing demand for fully integrated end-to-end automation solutions. This demand is not just a North American phenomenon; it is also gaining traction across Europe and other markets. Companies are looking for ways to enhance their supply chain resilience, improve efficiency, and reduce environmental impact—and automation is at the core of these efforts.
Q: HOW WILL LOWER INTEREST RATES HELP SPUR INVESTMENTS IN AUTOMATION?
Ben Gaegauf – Agilox: This will surely help, though it’s not necessarily at the core of our conversations. Productivity, safety, and predictability are still the main conversation drivers. Of course, lower interest rates will help speed up the payback time for capital investments. And overall, just as with most other industries, we expect to benefit from a more favorable business environment in general, which should drive the economy higher.
Robert Humphrey – Element Logic: With the reduced cost of borrowing, we expect more companies will leverage and continue leveraging financing for these investments. Even with higher-than-average interest rates, we’ve still observed a large percentage of companies leveraging financing on automation projects to help preserve capital for investment in other areas of their business to maintain growth.
Chris Coote – Dexory: When interest rates are lower, businesses generally feel more confident about the economy and future profitability. This encourages firms to take on projects such as automation, which are designed to improve operational efficiencies.
For businesses that have already started their automation journeys, lower borrowing costs mean that businesses are able to scale their projects further and look at other areas they can invest in. This can include things like bringing in hardware and software solutions that enhance overall productivity. These projects are easier for businesses to initiate as cheaper debt financing becomes available.
Q: HOW CAN WAREHOUSE LEADERS SELL THEIR COMPANY’S DECISION-MAKERS ON THE ADVANTAGES OF ROBOTIC SOLUTIONS?
Nathan Richter – Movu: The key to convincing decision-makers lies in showing how warehouse automation directly addresses labor shortages and operational bottlenecks, and can thereby increase warehouse performance. With robotics solutions, companies can streamline material handling, improve order accuracy, and scale their operations. A clear ROI [return on investment] analysis that highlights faster throughput, reduced labor costs, and the ability to meet growing demand often seals the deal.
Rick DeFiesta – GeekPlus: When it comes to whether or not to automate, the real question posed to decision-makers should be, “What if we continue to carry on as we have?” You will still continue to struggle with [a shortage of] labor, and the cost of labor will continue to go up. So how will you get products to customers rapidly without making some investments that will offset the lack of labor and higher labor costs?
Ben Gaegauf – Agilox: The market is already well aware of the industry’s shift toward automation and robotics. Our challenge lies in showing customers that they can benefit from participating in this trend now—“What’s in it for me today rather than tomorrow?" We believe that at its core, there are essentially two main drivers that support robotics adoption: increased productivity (operational and financial) and risk reduction (predictability, safety, etc.). Robotic solutions help on both fronts, and the latest technological developments have made it much easier to demonstrate that to the customer.
Q: WHAT DO YOUR CUSTOMERS CONSIDER TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE ROI, AND DOES THAT VARY BY THE TYPE OF PROJECT?
Cody Upp – Zebra Robotics: Our automation solutions are quick to implement and scale as your needs evolve, delivering ROI. They allow you to achieve real-time visibility into workflow progress across your facility, optimizing operations, identifying bottlenecks, and driving continuous improvements—all guided by advanced insights and reporting.
It’s also important to note that for companies opting for the Robots-as-a-Service (RaaS) model, customers should not solely focus on traditional ROI metrics. Instead, they should consider how much free cash flow the investment is creating. The goal is to maximize their internal rates of return, ensuring that the investment contributes positively to their overall financial health and operational efficiency.
Chris Coote – Dexory: ROI can mean different things to people at different levels of the organization. Those in the C-suite might be looking at ROI from the point of view of cost savings, while those working on the warehouse floor might look at it from the perspective of time saved or accuracy improvements. Generally, each ROI case is as unique as each business is. Where the issues they are looking to solve through automation might be similar, the end goals and objectives of each business are going to be vastly different.
Rick DeFiesta – GeekPlus: Today, customers are not as rigid in their thinking about the ROI aspect of a project—meaning they’re not using strictly headcount or using metrics like, say, a two-year payback. They are considering many other factors, like being able to deliver to their growing ranks of customers and to meet their expectations. And in this day and age, if customers don’t receive a product in two days, they’re buying someplace else. So really, it’s a matter of meeting customer demand more than a justification for pure ROI.
Q: FOR A COMPANY WITHOUT ANY ROBOTS, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO INVEST IN ROBOTICS, AND WHAT IS A GOOD ENTRY POINT?
Robert Humphrey – Element Logic: In most cases, the conditions that make sense for robotics are factors such as labor shortages, high order volumes, the need for improving accuracy, etc. For the robotics systems we offer, we usually find that any company that has at least 5,000 storage locations and at least seven associates working as pickers in their warehouse is large enough to benefit from automation.
Chris Coote – Dexory: An entry point is entirely dependent on the business and its objectives. Generally, we would advise businesses to start by ensuring that they have the necessary intelligence available to them from their warehouses. This can include things like inventory accuracy all the way to optimizing warehouse layout. If you start to deploy picking robots in the first instance but they are going to the wrong locations because of discrepancies in the system, you may have deployed robotics but the solution is unlikely to have the desired impact if you failed to first address the visibility challenges in your operation.
Cody Upp – Zebra Robotics: It makes sense when you can create monthly free cash flow using a more efficient labor force as a saving category on the investment when robotics are used to drive labor efficiency and cost savings. Our automation enables you to achieve real-time visibility across your facility, connect isolated islands of automation, and [free up] employees to perform higher-value tasks, all with the flexibility to automate however you need.
Q: HOW HAS THE ADVENT OF THE ROBOTS-AS-A-SERVICE BUSINESS MODEL AFFECTED ROBOTICS ADOPTION?
Bart Cera – Vargo: One of the major ways RaaS has affected robotics adoption is by reducing the required capital purchase entry point and providing a bundled cost of use. In addition, many RaaS subscription providers offer flexibility to scale robotic operations up or down based on demand, whereas a traditional CapEx robotic purchase would require overinvestment to handle short-term peak operating demand or the deployment of some other work process to [handle the overflow]. Another positive that comes to mind is the ability to conduct an in-facility pilot to prove out the robots’ functionality. And because the robots tend to be quick to deploy, you can realize the benefits of the technology sooner.
Stanislas Normand – Exotec: I think that overall, RaaS will benefit the adoption of robotics. The model effectively brings down the financial barriers to trying out robotics, which can be particularly appealing to smaller or risk-averse organizations. We have even started seeing some early signs that RaaS can help move prospects toward higher-performance CapEx solutions.
Robert Humphrey – Element Logic: RaaS has drastically increased adoption of robotics systems for the industry as a whole. It allows the end-user to greatly improve the ROI timing because it [eliminates the need for a large upfront capital investment] yet typically provides immediate benefits. It has greatly reduced the barrier to entry for many companies. It also provides a flexible approach, which makes growing and/or changing the system to align with the underlying business needs easier.
Q: WHAT CAN TODAY’S ROBOTICS SYSTEMS DO THAT PREPANDEMIC SYSTEMS COULD NOT?
Rick DeFiesta – GeekPlus: Industrial automation is the fastest-growing segment technology-wise. Robotics companies were pushed to solve problems to meet demand at a much faster rate than if the pandemic hadn’t happened. As customer demand for speedier deliveries continues to increase, robotics companies are always working to create smarter and faster automated warehouses.
Nathan Richter – Movu: Postpandemic robotics systems are far more advanced in terms of flexibility, scalability, and intelligence. Today’s robots can integrate seamlessly with warehouse management systems, work alongside human workers in collaborative environments, and adapt to changing workflows in real time. Our robots can now handle a broader range of tasks, from pallet and bin storage, to pallet transport, to bin/eaches picking.
Andrea Pongolini – E80: The capabilities of robotic systems have evolved significantly since the prepandemic era. Today, robotic systems offer advanced integration with digital infrastructures, providing real-time data analysis that enhances decision-making and operational efficiency. They now handle more complex tasks with precision, such as using vision systems for intricate product handling. In addition, modern systems are more adaptable and scalable, allowing businesses to respond to sudden fluctuations in demand more effectively.
Q: HOW WILL ADVANCES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) AFFECT TOMORROW’S ROBOTICS?
Nathan Richter – Movu: AI will enhance warehouse robotics by making systems more adaptive, predictive, and efficient. Our company is already exploring AI-driven optimization in our robots, enabling smarter decision-making, such as dynamic route planning and predictive maintenance. These advancements will allow tomorrow’s warehouses to operate with even greater efficiency and minimal downtime, driving further innovation in the sector.
Cody Upp – Zebra Robotics: We look for advancements in AI to enable the use of machine learning instead of algorithmic decision-making around order allocation.
Bart Cera – Vargo: Wow, that is a great question—and one that’s hard to answer given the significant AI advances we’ve seen in a relatively short time. I think robotics (with the help of continued increases in computing power) will continue to make stair-step increases in performance speed and the ability to perceive the environment around them, while further expanding their autonomy and possibly even increasing their cognitive abilities to apply reason, plan, and solve problems. Hopefully, it stops, though, before they become self-aware and take over the world (ha ha).
Q: WHAT ONE PROBLEM DO CUSTOMERS MOST WISH TO SOLVE WITH ROBOTICS?
Ben Gaegauf – Agilox: Our customers want to improve their ability to serve their own customers while at the same time improving their productivity and profitability. Efficiency is the name of the game. Our customers want predictability, improved workplace safety, traceability, and, above all, the flexibility to adapt to changes in the market quickly, easily, and independently.
Andrea Pongolini – E80: I’d say the one problem our customers most wish to solve with robotics is improving operational efficiency while reducing costs. Across industries, companies are constantly looking for ways to streamline their production processes, increase throughput, and optimize resource utilization—all without compromising quality or safety. Robotics plays a critical role in addressing these challenges by automating repetitive tasks, improving accuracy, and minimizing the inefficiencies associated with manual work.
Stanislas Normand – Exotec: I would say it’s a blend of two problems: reaching a high level of performance while maintaining operational flexibility. Traditionally, warehouse automation focused purely on performance, which is why many legacy automation solutions leveraged monolithic systems optimized for high throughput. The problem with these systems is that you need to have the ability to accurately forecast your needs years in advance because once these systems are installed, there is no easy way to scale them up or down. This means that most of these projects either overshoot or undershoot with respect to capacity.
That’s where robotics fits in. Because robotic systems are generally lighter weight, have shorter installation times, and can scale after the initial installation, they offer the best of both worlds in terms of their ability to reach high performance without sacrificing the flexibility to grow your operations down the line.