<$MTBlogName$

How to to Minimize Your Distribution Center Storage Footprint for Slower-Moving, Low-Cube SKUs

By Ian Hobkirk | 10/15/2018 | 9:29 AM

Six Ways to Postpone DC Expansion Part VI - Slow Moving SKUS -DCVThis blog is the sixth and last in a series on distribution center capacity and space utilization.  So far, I’ve covered the concepts of slottingoptimizing storage depthsreducing aisle widthshow to take advantage of overhead dock space, and automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS). This last post will focus on two types of storage systems that can condense the storage footprint for slower-moving, low-cube SKUs.

 

If your company’s budget cannot bear the cost of an automated storage and retrieval system, there are some pragmatic alternatives that may be worth considering for storage of slower moving, low-cube SKUs: SpeedCell® storage systems and mobile storage rack. Let’s explore:

 

SPEEDCELL® STORAGE SYSTEMS

SpeedCell® storage systems can be retrofitted into standard pallet rack and can significantly increase the number of SKUs which can be stored in that space. This technology functions somewhat like a hanging closet organizer: three rows of hanging shelving store product in a very dense configuration, and the front rows can be pushed to the side to access the rear rows. Pick speeds with SpeedCell® systems are relatively slow, so fast-moving product should not be placed here. (Image Source: SpeedCell®)

 

MOBILE STORAGE RACK

 

Another form of storage that is gaining in popularity is mobile storage rack. Each section of the rack is mounted on a track system in the floor, and when not in use the rack system actually collapses its footprint so that there is no aisle space at all between rack sections. When a bin location needs to be accessed, the rack sections roll open and create an aisle for a lift truck driver to travel down. As one might imagine, these systems do not move quickly, and should only be used to store slower moving product. Despite their unorthodox design, these systems actually offer very high storage density at a relatively low cost for slow-moving SKUs. (Image Source: Spacesaver®)

 

 

This post concludes the Blog Series: Six Ways to Postpone – Or Eliminate – Your Distribution Center Expansion.  Companies faced with expansion decisions have a variety of options to consider before deciding on how to proceed. However, one fundamental strategy any such company should consider – which is not addressed in this series – is an inventory reduction strategy. Some companies have experienced success by employing tactics such as improved order management, postponement, and in-transit visibility programs to safely reduce inventory levels and delay a costly build-out.  Inventory reduction in conjunction with the six concepts discussed can often work together to open up less costly solutions for companies that need to expand operations but minimize operating cost increases.

 

Did you like this post? Read the Whitepaper: Six Ways to Postpone -Or Avoid- DC Expansion or watch the recorded webinar.

Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems: When to Consider the Investment

By Ian Hobkirk | 10/04/2018 | 9:31 AM

Six Ways to Postpone DC Expansion Part V - ASRS DCVThis blog is the fifth in a series on distribution center capacity and space utilization.  So far, we’ve covered the concepts of slotting, optimizing storage depths, reducing aisle widths, and how to take advantage of overhead dock space.  While these four tactics can be used to postpone an eventual facility expansion, using automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS) is often a way to prevent an expansion entirely. AS/RS systems come in many flavors, and include equipment like:

  • Horizontal and vertical carousels
  • Vertical lift modules
  • Pallet-handling AS/RS
  • Mini-load systems
  • Shuttle systems

These systems have several common attributes:

  • They often take full advantage of building height
  • They usually minimize or reduce aisle space
  • They seek to minimize labor requirements by bringing product (either cases or pallets) to the workers rather than the other way around

Due to these factors, AS/RS systems are among the most space efficient solutions available and offer the added benefit of labor cost reductions. However, these systems are expensive and typically not easy to change or reconfigure as business needs evolve. AS/RS systems should be carefully designed and planned to ensure that they meet expectations.

 

Next up in the series: A blog on pragmatic alternatives to AS/RS systems that may be worth considering for storage of slower moving, low-cube SKUs. Can’t wait? Read the Whitepaper: Six Ways to Postpone -Or Avoid- DC Expansion or watch the recorded webinar.

Could You Park a Blimp in the Unused Space Above Your Dock Area? How to Take Advantage of Overhead Space in Your Distribution Center.

By Ian Hobkirk | 10/02/2018 | 1:41 PM

Six Ways to Postpone DC Expansion Part IV - Overhead Space DCV

This blog is the fourth in a series on distribution center capacity and space utilization.  So far, I’ve covered the concepts of slotting, optimizing storage depths and reducing aisle widths. In this post, I’ll look at how to take advantage of overhead dock space.

Even in highly-optimized distribution centers, overhead space in the dock area is often completely un-utilized. Since this is a high-traffic area, using overhead space requires creative thinking. Some ways that companies have found to take advantage of this space include:

  • Storing empty pallets or consumable supplies over dock doors. Pallet racking can be used to bridge over dock doors and create single-deep storage areas. While only a small percentage of the dock area can be reclaimed in this way, valuable space in the main pallet rack area can be freed up for storage of inventoried SKUs.
  • Build a mezzanine but be careful how it’s used. Mezzanines are poor places to store pallets – it can be hard to transport loads onto and off of the mezzanine, and lift trucks are generally impractical on a second level. Companies should focus on storing smaller parts here or performing labor intense manual operations in these areas. Good uses for mezzanines include:
    • Small parts storage on shelves or carousels
    • Packing and shipping areas for small parts (work benches, case sealers, etc.)
    • Value-added service centers for small parts (kitting, ticketing, labeling, etc.)

When designing a mezzanine, be sure to position the support columns in areas where they are less likely to cause lift truck collisions, and be sure to allow an easy means of transporting goods up and down from the mezzanine.

The next blog in the series will dive into the advanced topic of AS/RS systems. I’ll lay out an objective perspective on their benefits, costs and risks. Can’t wait? Read the Whitepaper: Six Ways to Postpone -Or Avoid- DC Expansion or watch the recorded webinar.

Narrow Aisles and Very-Narrow Aisles in the Distribution Center: Space Saving Benefits and Equipment Requirements

By Ian Hobkirk | 09/19/2018 | 8:16 AM

Six Ways to Postpone DC Expansion Part III - Narrow Aisle - DCVThis blog is the third in a series on ways to optimize space in your distribution center to extend its ability to support growth and postpone a capital expansion project. So far, the blogs in this series have covered the concepts of slotting and optimizing storage depths. In this post, We’ll explore aisle widths and the pros and cons associated with the lift trucks that go along with a move to narrow (and narrower) aisles.

 

When expanding the footprint of the warehouse is not an option, companies often employ creative techniques such as using narrower aisles to improve space utilization. Given the potential for space savings, it can be tempting to redesign a distribution center to utilize this equipment, however, careful thought must go into the design to ensure an effective operation. Often the vehicle requirements are a deciding factor for companies evaluating a footprint that incorporates narrow or very-narrow aisles.

 

Narrow-aisle lift trucks have been in use since the 1950’s, but are still not used in some distribution centers that would benefit from their space-saving features. Conventional sit-down style lift trucks require aisle widths of 11 to 14 feet. Reach-style lift trucks only require 8.5 to 9.5-foot aisle widths and cost only slightly more than sit-down units. However, reach trucks cannot drive in and out of trailers. So, if true dock-to-stock operation is required, then companies should consider a compromise vehicle: the stand-up counterbalanced truck, which requires 10’ aisles. All of these lift truck types cost within approximately 15% of each other.

 

Very-narrow-aisle lift trucks are in a category of their own. These trucks can cost three to four times as much as a conventional lift truck, but they can operate in 5.5’ aisles and offer tremendous space savings. Of the two major categories of very-narrow-aisle trucks, “turret trucks” are generally regarded as the fastest. They can also double as a case picking vehicle for multi-level picking, as the operator rides up with the load. Conversely, swing mast trucks keep the driver on the ground, but are often better suited for maneuvering in tight areas. Since there are only a few inches of clearance between the lift truck and the pallet rack, very-narrow-aisle vehicles usually require rail guidance or wire guidance systems to prevent collisions.

 

The next blog in the series will describe ways you can get creative with unused space above your distribution center dock area to increase capacity. Can’t wait? Read the Whitepaper: Six Ways to Postpone -Or Avoid- DC Expansion or watch the recorded webinar.

How to Optimize Storage Depth to Create Space in Your Distribution Center

By Ian Hobkirk | 09/14/2018 | 4:40 AM

How to Optimize Storage Depth DCV Blog

This blog is the second in a series I’m writing on ways to optimize space in your distribution center to extend its ability to support growth and postpone a capital expansion project. I covered the concept of slotting as a space-saving strategy in the last post. In this blog, optimizing storage depth is the focus.

One of the largest areas of opportunity for many of companies lies in optimizing storage depth in the distribution center. Warehouses that have a significant number of SKUs where two-to-three pallets are regularly kept on hand should consider storing this product in a medium other than Single-Deep pallet rack.

Single-Deep rack sacrifices too much space to aisles to store large quantities of the same SKU in this medium. Instead, companies should consider allocating a certain percentage of their distribution center space, twenty percent for instance, to deep-lane storage mediums such as those listed below:

 

Push-Back Rack

Push-Back rack can be used to store pallets just two positions deep, or up to five positions, without sacrificing additional space to aisles. Pallets are loaded into the same side of the system from which they are picked. The company’s existing lift trucks can be used to access the rack, and each vertical level of storage can be used to store a different SKU. Drawbacks to Push-Back rack include its cost as well as the fact that FIFO (first-in/first-out) storage is not accommodated.  Image Source: Interlake Mecalux

 

Pallet-Flow Rack

Pallet-Flow rack, on the other hand, does allow FIFO storage. Pallets are fed into the back of the system and retrieved from the front, so more aisle space is required than for Push-Back rack. Storage depths can be much greater than with Push-Back rack (10-deep in some cases), and there is still no special lift truck requirement. Pallet-Flow rack is generally regarded as one of the most expensive ways to store pallets, however. Image Source: Interlake Mecalux

 

 

 

Double-Deep Rack

Double-Deep rack is much less expensive than Push-Back or Pallet-Flow rack, but special “deep-reach” lift trucks are required to access it, which can cost 10% to 20% more than normal reach-style lift trucks. Although pallets can only be stored two positions deep, Double-Deep rack is highly flexible. If designed with this idea in mind, Double-Deep rack can often be reconfigured as Single-Deep rack if requirements change in the future. Image Source: Aceally International

 

 

Drive-In Rack

Though relatively inexpensive, Drive-In rack is much more limiting than the three previous storage mediums.
Drive-In rack is often configured in depths of four to five pallets, but ALL of the vertical levels in a Drive-In system must contain the same SKU. Companies with frequent occurrences of ten or more pallets of the same product should consider this form of storage.  Image Source: Interlake Mecalux

 

 

 

 

In the next blog in this series, “Narrow Aisles and Very-Narrow Aisles in the Distribution Center: Space Saving Benefits and Equipment Requirements,” we’ll explore aisle widths and the pros on cons associated with the move to narrow (and narrower) aisles. Can’t wait? Read the Whitepaper: Six Ways to Postpone -Or Avoid- DC Expansion or watch the recorded webinar.

How to Reclaim Unused Distribution Center Space with Better Slotting

By Ian Hobkirk | 08/31/2018 | 1:10 PM

Six Ways to Postpone DC Expansion Part I - Slotting - DCV

This blog is the first in a series I’m writing on ways to optimize space in your distribution center to extend its ability to support growth and potentially postpone a capital expansion project. Each blog in the series will be dedicated to one of six key space-saving strategies and techniques. Today the topic is slotting.

In the context of logistics, slotting can be defined as ensuring that each SKU is in its proper location to maximize space and labor efficiency. The concept of slotting is simple. A quantity of product the size of a bowling ball, placed in a bin location big enough to fit an entire pallet, takes up a lot of space unnecessarily. If this practice is repeated across hundreds or thousands of SKUs, the inefficiency propagates and becomes a major problem.

A proper slotting initiative generally involves a one-time, large scale “re-set” of inventory locations, followed by regular incremental re-slots as product demand changes due to seasonality, new product introductions, and obsolescence.

Industries with high demand volatility such as apparel or consumer electronics have a harder time slotting product, as the “fast-moving” SKUs in the warehouse change from month to month, or even week to week. These companies often require sophisticated slotting software programs to manage all of the complex variables at play. Conversely, other businesses may have a much more stable demand pattern and can perform slotting with more rudimentary tools, such as spreadsheets.

If the prospect of re-slotting the entire distribution center seems a daunting one, companies should keep in mind that a slotting project with the goal of reclaiming unused space can often be executed more easily than one that is driven by other factors, such as improving pick efficiency.

A space-driven slotting initiative seeks to store every product in the ideal storage medium, and does not necessarily need to place each product in the perfect location relative to the shipping dock (though this should certainly be considered). Space-driven slotting looks at cube and demand. It seeks to place a SKU in the smallest possible bin to accommodate a unit load of the product, and to move that product to an even smaller bin when product is depleted to the point where there is excess empty space in the bin. This form of slotting can often be accomplished with a spreadsheet.

The results of a slotting study may often reveal the need for different storage mediums in the distribution center. Full height pallet positions can often be cut down to half-height positions. Companies that are in a position to dictate the height of incoming pallets may find that a few inches higher or lower on average pallet height can make a big difference in terms of the number of pallets stored. In addition to single-deep pallet rack, it may be advisable to store product in carton flow rack, shelving, or even forms of deep lane storage, as discussed in the next section.

After re-assigning product to its optimal storage medium, much diligence is required to ensure that “honeycombing” does not slowly reclaim the gains made. Honeycombing occurs when product is slowly picked from a bin location, causing it to become under-utilized over time. A process must be put in place to consolidate product that has been honeycombed into smaller bins, to continue maximizing cube utilization at all times.

Now that we’ve covered the basics of slotting, stay tuned for the next blog in this series: Optimizing Storage Depth in the Distribution Center. Can’t wait? Read the Whitepaper: Six Ways to Postpone -Or Avoid- DC Expansion, or watch the recorded webinar.

Six Ways to Postpone – or Eliminate – Your Distribution Center Expansion, a Blog Series

By Ian Hobkirk | 08/24/2018 | 2:28 PM


Six Ways to Postpone DC Expansion Blog ImageCompanies that are out of space in their distribution centers face a host of financially undesirable choices. They can expand the current facility and live through the cost and chaos of a construction project. They can move to a larger warehouse – a highly disruptive activity with potential for major cost overruns. They can lease “overflow” space and shuttle product back and forth between the two facilities.

 

One common factor that all of these alternatives possess is that they almost always drive up the company’s ongoing operational expenses due to a larger investment in either real estate or labor.

 

There is an alternative to driving up operating expenses. Creative space utilization techniques can delay or eliminate the need to expand, move, or setup satellite facilities. This new blog series will be dedicated to six space-saving concepts that have been used by companies in a variety of industries, with success:

 

SIX STRATEGIES TO POSTPONE DISTRIBUTION CENTER EXPANSION:

1. Re-slot the distribution center

2. Optimize storage depth

3. Reduce aisle widths

4. Use overhead dock space

5. Use Automated Storage & Retrieval Systems (AS/RS)

6. Consider medium-density parts storage

 

Over the coming weeks in a series of six more blogs and a webinar (Watch the recorded webinar: Six Ways to Postpone - or Avoid - Your Distribution Center Expansion), I will be writing about each one of these concepts in detail. You’ll learn when and how to apply these techniques and the technologies and equipment that can be leveraged. Can’t wait? Read the Whitepaper: Six Ways to Postpone -Or Avoid- DC Expansion or watch the recorded webinar.

Build a Business Case – The Sixth Step in Selecting the RIGHT WMS

By Ian Hobkirk | 08/06/2018 | 4:46 AM

Business CaseBuilding a coherent business case will allow your company to confidently make a go/no-go decision with regards to investing in the purchase and implementation of a new Warehouse Management Software (WMS) system. The last five blogs in this series have outlined all the steps necessary to gather the information needed to develop a business case:

  • Perform detailed discovery
  • Define the current state
  • Define the future state
  • Project future savings
  • Estimate implementation costs

This blog focusses on how to build the business case itself.

EXAMINE THE VARIOUS OPTIONS

Once the cost savings and other benefits have been dollarized, and the cost of new software has been estimated (as described in the last two blogs in this series: Project Future Savings and Estimate Implementation Costs), then it is possible to compile a well-rounded business case which examines the various options available to a company. In most cases, at least three, possibly four scenarios should be considered:

  • Do nothing: Keep the current software and make no changes to it
  • Customize current software: Continue to customize the current software by modifying the source code as required
  • Upgrade: Perform a formal upgrade of the current software system to the current release
  • Replace: Implement a WMS system from a new vendor

CRITERIA TO CONSIDER

There are a variety of criteria to consider when evaluating each of these possible scenarios. Some of the major factors include:

  • Operational benefits: cost savings, scalability, supportability
  • Capital investment required to implement the software
  • Level of effort required internally to implement the software
  • Degree of customization and overall IT complexity required
  • Degree of risk involved if the implementation does not go as planned

All of these factors must be properly analyzed and compared for each scenario. For some scenarios, there will be a range of potential outcomes. For example, a new WMS from a Tier 1 vendor may be very expensive but not require as much customization as a solution from a mid-tier vendor which could be less expensive but less feature-rich.

If a strong business case for a WMS exists and your company decides to proceed with a new WMS, then a full WMS Vendor Selection Study is required to determine the optimal software partner to work with.

 

Related Reading:

White Paper: How to Choose the Right WMS – Part I: Distribution Center Process Optimization

White Paper: The Ultimate WMS Preparation Guidebook

White Paper: Selecting the Right WMS

White Paper: Six Ways to Postpone – Or Eliminate – Your Distribution Center Expansion

Estimate Implementation Costs – The Fifth Step in a Proper Warehouse Management Software Selection Process

By Ian Hobkirk | 01/29/2018 | 3:54 AM

IStock_000061311356_MediumBefore new warehouse management software (WMS) can be advocated, a company must first know the business implications associated with adopting it. This involves projecting future savings and estimating the implementation costs. In the last blog I outlined how to identify and dollarize the key areas where financial savings can be achieved.  This blog covers how to estimate the WMS implementation costs.

 

Determine the Solution Budget

Now that the company has a sense of the potential savings which are available, they must next determine how much they are willing to invest to achieve those savings. A good starting point is to ask what payback period is acceptable on the investment. Multiplying this payback period by the projected annual savings can establish a rudimentary budgetary figure for the maximum the company wants to spend on a solution. Companies shouldn’t forget ongoing costs as well – most WMS providers charge anywhere from 18% to 22% of the software license fee as a recurring annual support cost to keep the system current and rectify problems.

 

Solicit Feedback from Potential WMS Vendors

The cost of implementing WMS software can vary tremendously based upon factors like operational complexity, degree of customization, and user and site count. Experienced resources who have participated in multiple implementations over many years can often help estimate the general costs associated with the project. However, in order to get an estimate that is precise enough to satisfy most internal financial review processes, it is usually important to have dialogue on some level with actual WMS vendors. At this stage of the process, it is not usually advisable to embark on a full vendor selection study which can take many months of work. However, conducting an abbreviated “feasibility” analysis process can often be effective at this phase. The major steps to a feasibility analysis include:

 

Create a Challenging Functionality Matrix

In software implementations, the Pareto principle often applies: 80% of the problems are caused by 20% of the process requirements. In order to have any degree of confidence in a vendor’s costing quote, the vendor must be made well aware of “the 20%” and factor this into their pricing estimate. To facilitate this, list the processes which the company believes will be the most challenging for a new WMS to accommodate. This is not the full Detailed Process Specification, but a small subset of ten or twenty key process at most, which are expected to be most difficult to achieve from a software perspective. These are compiled into a small spreadsheet which lists them in a concise format, called the Challenging Functionality Matrix.  Next to each line item of functionality, vendors must indicate whether this feature is available as standard functionality, or whether it requires extensive configuration or customization to achieve.

 

Identify Vendors

The company next identifies five or six potential WMS vendors to share the Challenging Functionality Matrix with. If the company chooses to proceed later with a full WMS vendor selection process, they will not be limited to only use the five or six vendors chosen for the feasibility analysis. These vendors should represent a range of vendor types, from Tier 1 to mid-tier vendors, as well as specialty vendors who may have a focus on the particular industry type in question. It is important to understand the basic pricing and functional capabilities that each vendor can provide.

 

Vendors Complete the Challenging Functionality Matrix

Vendors review the Challenging Functionality Matrix and indicate where their software must be customized to accommodate this functionality. Vendors complete a Budgetary Request for Proposal and indicate approximate cost of their software with implementation. It is important to remember again that this is not a full WMS Vendor Selection Study. Vendors should spend no more than a couple of days completing this information, not the weeks of time which will be required later on.

 

Don’t Ignore Current Software

The same Challenging Functionality Matrix should also be distributed and reviewed with the support team for the existing software platform. If one of the options under consideration is retaining or upgrading this software, then it will be important to have an estimate of the cost and level of effort required to do this.

 

Stay tuned. The next blog in this series, Build the Business Case – The Sixth Step in Selecting the Right WMS, will outline how to compile a well-rounded business case which examines the various options which are available to a company. Can’t wait? Read the white paper, How to Choose the Right WMS – Part I: Distribution Center Process Optimization.

 

Related Blogs:

Getting to Know Your Distribution Center – The First Step in Selecting the RIGHT WMS

Define the Current State – The Second Step in a Proper Warehouse Management Selection Process

Define the Future State – The Third Step in Selecting the RIGHT WMS

Project Future Savings – The Fourth Step in a Proper Warehouse Management Software Selection Process

Project Future Savings – The Fourth Step in a Proper Warehouse Management Software Selection Process

By Ian Hobkirk | 12/08/2017 | 7:42 AM

IStock_74978461_SMALLBefore new warehouse management software (WMS) can be advocated, a company must first know the business implications associated with adopting it. This involves identifying and dollarizing the key areas where financial savings can be achieved.

Labor Savings

A key area where most companies cost-justify a WMS purchase is in direct labor savings. To this end, it is important to properly allocate labor, or, determine the amount of labor required to perform each task in the distribution center. There are many methods to do this. Perfect precision is usually not required here, so companies will generally not need to resort to engineered time studies at this stage. The goal is to determine in a typical day the number of man-hours required to execute each major type of transaction, based first on the current state processes.

Then, in the same manner that labor was allocated to current processes, labor also needs to be projected for the future processes. The same spreadsheet approach is often sufficient here as well. Estimate the amount of future labor which is required to execute each task. Sometimes it can be helpful to model pick travel paths and assess the amount of labor required in a typical day with the new processes compared to the old. Some third-party pick-path modeling tools are available that can construct a rudimentary model of this data that is less precise than a true time-study, but more than sufficient for these purposes.

Estimated labor savings can often be “sanity checked” by looking at industry benchmarks in areas which lend themselves well to comparison across companies, such as “lines picked per hour per worker.” Projected savings from process re-engineering can be compared to typical productivity rates which other companies have realized, and a realistic estimate of labor savings can be achieved.

Accuracy Savings

It is also important at this stage to try to quantify the savings which can be achieved from improved customer service. What is the true cost to rectify a miss-shipment? How often do these errors lead to lost business? If a company ships to major retailers, how much do they spend annually on charge-backs due to non-compliant shipments?

Space Savings

A less common area where WMS systems can lead to operational savings is in the area of space utilization. WMS systems can help companies improve their slotting and “right-size” bins in the warehouse. This can often lead to compressed storage footprints and more efficient use of space. Under some circumstances, it makes sense to include space savings in the financial justification for a new WMS. In my opinion, however, these savings should only be included if (a) they are directly attributable to the new WMS, and not some other technology, and (b) the space which is saved can be directly monetized, i.e. by reducing the need to pay for outside storage space or delaying a facility expansion.

Inventory Savings

A case can also be made that WMS system can help reduce inventory in some instances. Often the additional data that a WMS can collect on handling steps and the number of times a product is touched during its lifecycle in the distribution center can be used to raise awareness of true inventory carrying costs and can help build the case for more efficient inventory management processes. All of these factors must be taken into account for each area of the warehouse which is being considered. The output of this step is a projected annualized operational savings for each category.

Other Financial Considerations

Of course, not all companies deploy new WMS systems with the primary goal of achieving operational savings. Other common reasons for implementing a WMS include:

  • Scalability: Enabling new processes which will allow the company to grow more quickly than otherwise would be possible.
  • Revenue growth: A new WMS system may allow the company to offer new services such as e-commerce distribution which would have been difficult to do without technology.
  • Supportability: Many companies may have functioning WMS systems that support the business needs, but which are legacy systems that are no longer easily supportable. They may have been internally developed, and the resources who understand the code base and architecture may be growing fewer every year. Implementing a new WMS may be critical to an ongoing risk-mitigation plan.

While these other considerations may be harder to “dollarize,” they should be factored into the financial justification for a new WMS in some way.

Stay tuned. The next blog in this series, Estimate Implementation Costs – The Fifth Step in Selecting the Right WMS, will outline how a company can determine how much they should invest to achieve the projected savings. Can’t wait? Read the white paper, How to Choose the Right WMS – Part I: Distribution Center Process Optimization.

Related Blogs:

Getting to Know Your Distribution Center – The First Step in Selecting the RIGHT WMS

Define the Current State – The Second Step in a Proper Warehouse Management Selection Process

Define the Future State – The Third Step in Selecting the RIGHT WMS

The opinions expressed herein are those solely of the participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of Agile Business Media, LLC., its properties or its employees.

About Ian Hobkirk

Ian Hobkirk

Ian Hobkirk is the founder and Managing Director of Commonwealth Supply Chain Advisors. Over his 20-year career, he has helped hundreds of companies reduce their distribution labor costs, improve space utilization, and meet their customer service objectives. He has formed supply chain consulting organizations for two different systems integration firms, and managed the supply chain execution practice at The AberdeenGroup, a leading technology analyst firm.



Categories

Popular Tags

Subscribe to DC Velocity

Subscribe to DC Velocity Start your FREE subscription to DC Velocity!

Subscribe to DC Velocity
Renew
Go digital
International