The challenge
A distribution operation needed to improve unit-picking productivity and create capacity for growth. The available solutions ranged from software-enhanced manual picking to high-capital automated storage and retrieval. Selecting the most automated system risked committing capital well beyond what the operating profile justified.
Our approach
Low-capital baseline
Modeled conventional pick-to-cart with intelligent order grouping, pick-path optimization, batching, and slotting. This established a credible benchmark against which automation had to earn its return.
Medium-capital alternatives
Evaluated collaborative or swarming AMRs and AMR goods-to-person concepts, including labor productivity, replenishment, fleet requirements, and scalable deployment.
High-capital alternatives
Compared multi-shuttle and cube-based goods-to-person systems for storage density, throughput, workstation capacity, building requirements, and total investment.
Complete system economics
Included direct and indirect labor, replenishment, decant, exceptions, maintenance, integration, peak utilization, and capital costs rather than relying on workstation pick rates.
Sensitivity and thresholds
Tested changes in order volume, real estate cost and availability, labor rates, SKU and order mix, and future growth to identify where another technology would become economically preferable.
The recommendation
The analysis supported a mid-capital solution that delivered the most attractive economics for the expected operating profile while retaining room to scale. High-capital approaches might have won at higher volumes or under more constrained building and labor conditions, but the selected solution balanced risk, flexibility, and return under the customer’s assumptions.
The ADK Advisory perspective
The best automation is not necessarily the system with the highest pick rate; it is the one with the strongest sustainable economics and the flexibility to support the business as it changes.