Distribution Center Designjjb/talks/Bastian_Case... · 2019-10-22 · A design methodology based on historical data projected into future design requirements requires a ... Primary

October 22, 2019

Distribution Center Design

Case Study: B2B Fulfillment Center

Dean Starovasnik, Director, Consulting Sales

Agenda

• Bastian Overview

• Automation to Compete

• Process High Points

• Case Study

• Discussion

• Established in 1952

• ~900 Employees

420+ Engineers

• 300+ Suppliers

• 5000+ Customers

TMHGToyota Material Handling Group

TICOToyota Industries Corporation

TALGToyota Advanced Logistics Group

TALNAToyota Advanced

Logistics North America

TMHNAToyota Material Handling North

America

TMHEToyota Material Handling Europe

TOYOTAL&FJapan

INTERNATIONAL

TMHNADealers

TICO Organization

VanderlandeBastian Solutions

Automation to Compete

“Goods to Person” Comparison

Picking Throughput

Response Time Expandability

Storage Density

OperatingFlexibility

Perfect Pick

ADAPTO

Servus

AutoStore

Robotic Shuttle “Piece” Picking

Robotic Shuttle “Piece” Picking EoAT

“Goods to Person” Rules of Thumb

Technology Rate Rule of Thumb

Perfect Pick~350-400 cycles per hour per end of

aisle

ADEPTO ~350 cycles per hour per aisle

Servus ~300 cycles per hour per lift

AutoStore ~250 cycles per hour per port

Goods to Robot

Automated Reach Truck

Turret-Swing Reach Truck Model 9600

• Alternate to Unit Load AS/RS• Guide by Wire

• Inductive Power Transfer

• No Batteries

Exacta Suite: Supply Chain Software

Warehouse Management

Warehouse Control

Warehouse Execution

Cloud WMS/WCS Beverage Execution

FleetManagement

HoloPick Fleet Management

Bastian Solutions Consulting

Operational and Material Handling Consulting

Client Representative Model

Checks/Balances when Bastian Solutions Involved

Consulting Revenue Income

Bastian Consulting – An Independent Client Partner

Mike ClemensBS Industrial Management Auburn Kellogg School of

Management

Jose BejaranoBS I.E. LouisvilleMS I.E. Louisville

JD StumpfBS I.E. Missouri-ColumbiaMS I.E. Missouri-Columbia

The Bastian Consulting Group

Jason Tenorio, DirectorBS M.E. GMI

MS I.E. Georgia Tech

Tim Duket, MgrBS I.E. PurdueMS I.E. Purdue

Kyle DorgeBS I.E. Missouri-Columbia

Charlie MinjaresBS M.E. ITESM

MS Quality Systems ITESM

Tyler StrattonBS I.E.

BS. EconomicsMissouri-Columbia

Michael WaltersBS I.E. Purdue

MS I.E. Georgia Tech

Marvin LoganVP of Consulting

& IntegrationB.S. I.E. Purdue

Carlos CandiaBS I.E.

Universidad La SalleMéxico

Jiayao ZhangBS I.E. Georgia Tech

Mike WellsBS Business Admin

University of WisconsinMBA, Lake Forest

Pablo PozasBS I.E. USC

MS Global Supply Chain Mgmt USC

Mike SenutaBS IE

University at BuffaloMBA Clark University

Dustin CrandallBS I.E. Missouri

Dean StarovasnikBS Aerospace Eng., MIT

MS Space Systems, Naval PG School

Justin WillbanksBBA in Logistics and

Intermodal Transportation, Georgia Southern

Wayne Lewis, Sr. MgrBS. Industrial Mgmt -

Georgia Tech

Rob SchabingerBS I.E. NC State

Jeff SnyderBS I.E. Texas Tech

Mike PrinceBS I.E. & Op Research

University of Massachusetts

Joe McGrathMBA Purdue

B.S. in Logistics & Supply B.S. in Marketing Iowa State

Landon MumbowerB.S. I.E.

Mississippi State

George ChienB.S.I.E. Purdue

Alison ShueyB.S.I.E. Purdue

Brian ShepardB.S.M.E. University of

Cincinnati

Material Handling / Automation Projects

Plan

• Strategic Planning

• Network Modeling

• Requirements Definition

• Data Analysis

Design

• Layout & Equipment Selection

• Operational & Systems Definition

• Labor Modeling

• Budget and ROI

• Simulation

Source

• Supplier Identification

• RFP Management

• Supplier Selection

Implement

• Project Management

• Functional Specification Documents

• Controls/Software Design

• Site Supervision

• Financial Administration

• Start-up Support

Bastian Consulting

Engineering Study Implementation Support

Process High Points

Where do we start?• Operational Review• Data Collection• Data Analysis• Profiling

Select an Order Fulfillment Methodology (OFM)• Based on order, customer and SKU profiles• Minimize handling, maximize service level

How big? & How fast?• Forward pick? Which tools?• Numbers of slots, facings, locations• Sortation parameters and requirements

Connect the dots

Process OverviewTo begin, a summary of the overall process will help visualize the destination. This will help in understanding the path to get there.

Keeping this process in mind while examining each of the individual steps will help keep the forest in view while looking at each tree.

Data-Based Design ProcessA design methodology based on historical data projected into future design requirements requires a range of data sources.

Design Requirements:•Order Fulfillment Methodology•MHE Throughput Rates•Pick Zones•Storage Media

Assumptions:•SKU Base•Handling Unit Type•Cartons Shipped•Pick Face Days Supply•Inventory Turns•Channel Mix

Design Parameters:•Planning Horizon•Growth Rates• Inventory Turns•Ship Window•Hourly Surges

Collect Data

Analyze Data

Construct Profiles

Develop Parameters

Model Scenarios

Define Requirements

Profiling – Input to the OFM Decision

OrderProfiles

Handling UnitProfiles

SKUProfiles

ORDERFULFILLMENT

METHODOLOGIES

BrokenCaseOFMs

FullCaseOFMs

Primary Manual vs. Automated Considerations:• Throughput requirements (hourly volumes)• Labor requirements (amount, cost, availability)• Service requirements (accuracy, service levels, costs of

non-conformance)

•Per ship method (parcel vs. truck)•Per order distributions•Per carton distributions

•Order completion•Single line percentage•Per day & hr distributions

•Full Case %•Broken Case %•Full Pallet %•Mixed Orders %•Special handling

• ABC (Pareto) Distribution• Full Case, Broken Case,

Full Pallet Volumes• Cube movement

Identifying the correct OFM’s for each portion of the operation is the first step in developing the facility design.

Broken Case OFMs

SKU Pick & Marry

Dynamic Zone

Pick To Tote

Complexity (Automation & Technology)

•Precise order cube cannot be pre-determined

•Re-handling/VAS at packing

•Precise order cube can be pre-determined

•Order ship ready at point of pick

•Low order complete % within pick zones

•High order complete % within pick zones

Batch(Cluster)Order Pick

•Low Lines/order•Low Cube/order•Small footprint (path)•Frequent order release•WMS capable•>1 fit on pick vehicle?

Pick &Pass

•Med-high volumes•Med Cube/order•Limited SKUs complete orders

•Med-high Lines/order

Goods to Person

•High line count

•Smaller cube items

•Large SKU count

Pick &Sort(Tilt-tray)

•High hourly volumes

•Sturdy/ durable products

Auto.Pick(A Frame)

•Very high hourly volumes

•Sturdy/ durable products

•Uniform/ standard product shapes & sizes

BulkPick &Re-Pick

•Limited WMS•Large SKU count

•needed to complete orders

Order to Product Product to Order

•Low lines/order•Opportunity to batch many orders•High SKU commonality across orders

Enhancements:RF VoicePTL RFID

Discrete (Single)Order Pick

•Low volumes•Small footprint (travel path)

•High Lines/order•Large Cube/order•Limited WMS

Pick To Carton

Sequential(Static) Zone

SingleOrder PickTo Pallet

MultiOrder PickTo Pallet

SKUPick & Sort Downstream

Pick toPallet & Sort

Zone pick& drop to inductpoint

Pick to Belt

•Med-high volume•Most applicable for Parcel•Small footprint•Random storage

•Very high hourly volumes

•Small # SKUs represent high % volume

•Limited WMS•Large number of SKUs to complete orders

•Adequate sort & staging space

•Low volumes•Most applicable for large, truck (LTL) orders

•Small order size•Pick vehicle has capacity for >1 order

Automation Considerations:

•Throughput requirements (peak hourly volumes)

•Labor requirements (amount, cost, availability) –current & projected

•Service requirements (accuracy, service levels, costs of non-conformance)

•Dock doors available/required

•Staging space available/required

Full Case OFMsComplexity (Automation & Technology)

Order to Product Product to Order

Case Study – B2B Fulfillment

Project Overview• Scope Overview: A full technology and system review of all material flow,

processing and storage aspects of the CITY facility

29

Part B Focus

• Simulation & Analysis

• Identify bottlenecks & constraints

• Refine sizing / requirements of functional areas (AutoStore, VAS/OMU areas, consolidation, etc.)

• Evaluate opportunities to improve design

• Update business case

• Design & Implementation Plan

• Update & refine layouts

• Refine & detail description of operations

• Determine system functional requirements (e.g., ManH vs. Exacta)

• Develop implementation plan

• Firm Proposal Pricing

• Project Goals• Reduction in labor

• Improved material flow

• Improved utilization of space

• Reduced manufacturing order cycle time

• Parts & Phases• Part A (Current Scope) Phase 1 – Data Analysis & Operational Assessment

Phase 2 – Concept Generation & Process Improvement

•Part B (Future Scope)• Phase 3 – Simulation, Design and Implementation Plan

• Phase 4 – Firm Pricing

Future State Volumes – Avg On-Hand Inventory

• Assumptions:• Avg on-hand inventory based on 4.0 turns

• Starting SKUs = 6,002

• Annual SKU growth = 1%

• Inventory profiles based on January & February 2019 snapshots

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

INVENTORY (Avg OnHand)

TOTAL

SKUs 6,002 6,062 6,123 6,184 6,246 6,308 6,371 6,435 6,499 6,564 6,630

QtyOH 7,166,227 7,381,213 7,602,650 7,830,729 8,065,651 8,307,621 8,556,849 8,813,555 9,077,961 9,350,300 9,630,809

CasesOH 150,344 154,855 159,500 164,285 169,214 174,290 179,519 184,905 190,452 196,165 202,050

CuFtOH 280,574 288,991 297,660 306,590 315,788 325,262 335,019 345,070 355,422 366,085 377,067

StdPltsOH 4,078 4,201 4,327 4,456 4,590 4,728 4,870 5,016 5,166 5,321 5,481

ALLIED

SKUs 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58

QtyOH 4,335,340 4,465,400 4,599,362 4,737,343 4,879,463 5,025,847 5,176,622 5,331,921 5,491,879 5,656,635 5,826,334

CasesOH 42,950 44,238 45,565 46,932 48,340 49,791 51,284 52,823 54,407 56,040 57,721

CuFtOH 68,936 71,004 73,134 75,328 77,588 79,915 82,313 84,782 87,326 89,945 92,644

StdPltsOH 989 1,019 1,049 1,081 1,113 1,146 1,181 1,216 1,253 1,290 1,329

GARMENTS

SKUs 5,950 6,009 6,069 6,130 6,191 6,253 6,316 6,379 6,442 6,507 6,572

QtyOH 2,830,887 2,915,813 3,003,288 3,093,386 3,186,188 3,281,774 3,380,227 3,481,634 3,586,083 3,693,665 3,804,475

CasesOH 107,395 110,617 113,935 117,353 120,874 124,500 128,235 132,082 136,044 140,126 144,329

CuFtOH 211,638 217,987 224,527 231,262 238,200 245,346 252,707 260,288 268,097 276,139 284,424

StdPltsOH 3,089 3,182 3,277 3,376 3,477 3,581 3,689 3,800 3,913 4,031 4,152

Future State - Avg Daily Throughput Volumes

• Assumptions:

• Daily average based on 252 work days per year

• Annual throughput growth = 3%

• Inbound units = outbound units

• Profiles based on Sep 2018 – Jun 2019 receiving data

• Trailers based on avg of 1000 cases/trailer

31

THROUGHPUT 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

INBOUND

Trailers 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

SKULines 216 222 229 236 243 250 258 266 274 282 290

QtyRecd 113,750 117,162 120,677 124,297 128,026 131,867 135,823 139,898 144,095 148,417 152,870

CasesRecd 1,827 1,882 1,939 1,997 2,057 2,118 2,182 2,247 2,315 2,384 2,456

CuFtRecd 3,370 3,471 3,575 3,682 3,793 3,907 4,024 4,144 4,269 4,397 4,529

TotalPltsRecd 48.2 49.7 51.1 52.7 54.3 55.9 57.6 59.3 61.1 62.9 64.8

ALLIED_PltsRecd 20.0 20.6 21.2 21.9 22.5 23.2 23.9 24.6 25.3 26.1 26.9

GARMENT_PltsRecd 28.2 29.0 29.9 30.8 31.7 32.7 33.7 34.7 35.7 36.8 37.9

ALLIEDSKULines 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.1

GARMENTSKULines 212 219 225 232 239 246 253 261 269 277 285

Daily Average

Executive Summary• The CITY DC is operating at capacity in terms

of storage, pick faces and throughput

• As currently configured, the facility is space constrained & cannot meet the long term requirements of the business

• Additional space is needed to bring ITEM production and potentially other value added services in-house

• Bastian evaluated several VAS processing options, including linear vs. cell based approaches

• Bastian assessed a number of material handling options to reduce labor, improve material flow & utilization of space & decrease manufacturing order cycle time

• Solutions that were appropriate to the business & cost effective were included in the final solution set

32

Executive Summary• Recommended Concept: AutoStore + Put Walls + New

VAS Flow + Pallet Racking

• Key Benefits• Enables Business Strategy of Bringing ITEMs In-house

• AutoStore and layout reconfiguration enable production & processing requirements to be met in existing footprint without the use of mezzanines or outside storage

• Increases Capacity• Addition of pallet and case storage rack extends life of building by 5+

years

• Drives Labor Savings• AutoStore: picking and restocking labor savings

• Pallet Racking: putaway labor savings

• Mechanized conveyor: elimination of manual transport operators

• Improves Flow / Decreases Order Cycle Time• Relocating Shipping to Production side of building facilitates overall

building flow (C-shape) and reduces time outbound carton is on conveyor

• By using a night shift to produce ITEMs in-house & cut/hem pants, orders can be processed immediately for the following day

• Use of put walls minimizes double handling & ensures product is ready when order is released for fulfillment

• Concept allows for scaling / expanding as needs dictate

• Payback = 4-5 years (as compared to Baseline)

33

Overall Layout

34

Pro

po

sed

• Supports 5 year requirements

• Designed with expansion capabilities

• Concept & investment to be refined during subsequent Design & Simulation Phase

• Automation options can be incorporated for additional investment

• Automated shipping sorter• Smart diverts into VAS areas• Recirculation loop

Concept Highlights• OMU Order Fulfillment

• All broken case volumes will be processed through AutoStore

• Order cartons will contain a single wearer• Code-Tapes & VAS instructions for the

carton will print at the AutoStore pick station

• Full cases for OMU orders will be pulled from storage and taken to drop zone at north end of AutoStore for code tapes

• ITEMs and finished pants will be picked from put-walls

• Cartons will flow to EHS/Sew, Code-Tape, Hang/Inspect

• Option to add smart diverts and recirculation loop

• OMU Carton Consolidation• Wearer cartons will be consolidated by

Market Center at Hang/Inspect• Empty cartons will be recovered at

AutoStore replen and H/I for reuse in picking

• Outbound cartons will be manually sorted at Shipping (option to automate sorter)

• Allied orders will be picked in full pallet and full case increments and shipped out of the Receiving side of the building

35

Recommended Concept Labor Savings (5 Years)Projected labor savings of 10-13 FTEs per year (as compared to the modified baseline) is driven by:• 67% reduction in picking &

restocking labor by implementing AutoStore

• Reduction of (0.4) shipping headcount by implementing inline case sealer

• Reduction of (1) OP driver by converting Allied putaway to pallet handling & storage

• Elimination of (3) manual VAS transport operators by mechanizing conveyor routing

• Other potential OMU/VAS headcount savings are NOT included

36

Modified Baseline Comparison Notes:• Assumes current order fulfillment processes with a (3) level shelving pick module• Includes putwall processing for ITEMs and finished pants• Assumes existing conveyor system remains as-is, with some additional conveyor to move

cartons though the pick module

Base Year

Recommended Concept 0 1 2 3 4 5

Function 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Unloader_Palletize 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3

Unloader_stage 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2

Pickers 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6

Restockers 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2

OP_Drivers 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6

OB_staging_packing 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

Loader_float 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2

Pallet Putaway 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Putwall Operators 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5

Distribution Total 14.4 14.8 15.3 15.7 16.2 16.7

FTES Saved 10.7 11.4 11.7 12.1 12.4 12.8

Baseline Equipment ROM Investment ROM Budget Recommended Equipment ROM Investment ROM Budget

Pick Module 780,000$ AutoStore (w/ Software) 2,750,000$

Putwalls w/ PTL 90,000$ Putwalls w/ PTL 90,000$

Storage Racking 300,000$ Storage Racking 200,000$

Conveyor System 288,500$ Conveyor System 450,000$

Overhead Empty Carton System -$ Overhead Empty Carton System 52,000$

Packing Stations -$ Packing Stations 3,200$

Inline carton sealer -$ Inline carton sealer 30,000$

Autobaggers -$ Autobaggers 60,000$

Relocation/Demolition of Existing Equipment 14,000$ Relocation/Demolition of Existing Equipment 100,000$

Forklift Equipment -$ Forklift Equipment 40,000$

Additional Software 150,000$ Additional Software 175,000$

Controls 115,400$ Controls 285,000$

Mechanical & Electrical Installation 230,800$ Mechanical & Electrical Installation 330,000$

Project Mgt 99,000$ Project Mgt 227,000$

INVESTMENT (before Contingency) 2,067,700$ TOTAL INVESTMENT 4,792,200$

Contingency 413,600$ Contingency 958,500$

TOTAL INVESTMENT (with Contingency) 2,481,300$ TOTAL INVESTMENT (with Contingency) 5,750,700$

Incremental Investment 3,269,400$

ROM Capital Budget – Baseline vs. Recommended

37

Notes:• 20% contingency factor• Production Equipment investment is NOT included

Headcount Savings 11.4 11.7 12.1 12.4 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8

Recommended Concept 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

INCREMENTAL 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Incremental Savings 581,083$ 616,471$ 654,014$ 693,843$ 736,098$ 758,181$ 780,927$ 804,355$ 828,485$ 853,340$

Incremental Capital Investment (3,269,400)$

Annual Cash Flow (3,269,400)$ 581,083$ 616,471$ 654,014$ 693,843$ 736,098$ 758,181$ 780,927$ 804,355$ 828,485$ 853,340$

Cumulative Cash Flow (3,269,400)$ (2,688,317)$ (2,071,846)$ (1,417,832)$ (723,989)$ 12,109$ 770,291$ 1,551,218$ 2,355,572$ 3,184,058$ 4,037,397$

Payback (yrs) 5.0

IRR (10 years) 16.7%

NPV (10 years) $1,393,553

Sensitivity - Incremental Investment w/out Contingency

INCREMENTAL 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Incremental Savings -$ 581,083$ 616,471$ 654,014$ 693,843$ 736,098$ 758,181$ 780,927$ 804,355$ 828,485$ 853,340$

Incremental Capital Investment (2,724,500)$

Annual Cash Flow (2,724,500)$ 581,083$ 616,471$ 654,014$ 693,843$ 736,098$ 758,181$ 780,927$ 804,355$ 828,485$ 853,340$

Cumulative Cash Flow (2,724,500)$ (2,143,417)$ (1,526,946)$ (872,932)$ (179,089)$ 557,009$ 1,315,191$ 2,096,118$ 2,900,472$ 3,728,958$ 4,582,297$

Payback (yrs) 4.2

IRR (10 years) 21.5%

NPV (10 years) $1,898,090

Incremental ROI (4-5 Year Payback)

• IRR & NPV calcs based on 10 year horizon• Assumes zero growth & investment beyond Year 5

• 3% annual labor inflation included in years 6-10

• Corporate taxes and depreciation NOT included

• NPV based on 8% cost of capital

• Business case for bringing ITEMs in-house is NOT included

38

Includes contingency

Excludes contingency

Includes 3% annual inflation

Includes 3% annual inflation

Case Storage Requirements vs. Capacity 0 1 2 3 4 5

Average On-Hand Inventory Requirements 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Allied Avg Cases On-Hand 42,950 44,238 45,565 46,932 48,340 49,791

Garment Avg Cases On-Hand 107,395 110,617 113,935 117,353 120,874 124,500

TOTAL Avg Cases On-Hand 150,344 154,855 159,500 164,285 169,214 174,290

Current State Baseline

Current Case Storage Capacity 164,160 164,160 164,160 164,160 164,160 164,160

Current Fwd Pick Case Capacity 8,856 8,856 8,856 8,856 8,856 8,856

Total Current Case Storage Capacity (Max) 173,016 173,016 173,016 173,016 173,016 173,016

Total Current Case Storage Capacity (Operational) 147,064 147,064 147,064 147,064 147,064 147,064

Pct Max Storage Capacity 87% 90% 92% 95% 98% 101%

Pct Operational Storage Capacity 102% 105% 108% 112% 115% 119%

Modified (Comparative) Baseline


Pick Mod Fwd Pick Case Capacity 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000

Proposed New Case Storage Capacity 46,080 46,080 46,080 46,080 46,080 46,080

Total Modified Case Storage Capacity (Max) 229,240 229,240 229,240 229,240 229,240 229,240

Total Modified Case Storage Capacity (Operational) 194,854 194,854 194,854 194,854 194,854 194,854



Recommended Concept Capacity

AutoStore Storage Capacity (cases) 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600


Additional Storage Capacity (in cases) 75,208 75,208 75,208 75,208 75,208 75,208

Total Recommended Case Storage Capacity (Max) 249,968 249,968 249,968 249,968 249,968 249,968

Total Recommended Case Storage Capacity (Operational) 212,473 212,473 212,473 212,473 212,473 212,473



Capacity Comparison• Current storage @ capacity

• Both the modified baseline and the recommended storage solutions achieve increases in overall storage capacity

• Recommended has greater capacity by storing Allied as pallets

• Building will reach NOT max storage capacity in 5 year planning horizon with the Recommended Concept at current projections and assumptions

39

Alternatives EvaluatedMaterial Handling

Case and Pallet Handling Alternatives

41

Concept Description Pros Cons Next Steps

Sorting/Robotic Palletizing, build pallets for allied inbound or MC out

• Faster pallet building• Reduces pallet build

headcount• Can be used for

inbound and outbound pallet build

• Expensive ($$$)• Works best with

consistent box sizes and pallet configurations

• Less flexible than manual

• Disqualified

Sortation Conveyor to sort boxes inbound or outbound by MC or storage

• Reduces sortation labor

• Expensive ($$) relative to headcount savings

• Included as an option in Recommended Concept

Mini-Load ASRS for case storage

• Denser storage than current

• No manned lift drivers for retrieval or put away

• Typically installed in Greenfield, esp. high bay buildings (> 40’ clear)

• Expensive

• Disqualified


Very Narrow Aisle (VNA) Single Deep Pallet Storage for Allied

• High selec�vity • Minimal aisle

required (<6’)

• Low produc�vity • P&D Handling • Aisle Conges�on • Expensive turret trucks

• Disqualified

Double-Deep Pallet Storage for Allied

• Inexpensive• Medium

selectivity• Conventional

reach trucks (w/ extended forks)

• Some honeycombing• Stock rotation• Slightly wider aisle required than

other options• Requires new forklifts

• Included in Recommended Concept

Drive-In Pallet Rack Storage for Allied Material

• Denser footprint

• Fits Allied inventory profile

• Stock rotation (FILO)• Requires new forklifts• Lower productivity than DD• Highest Honeycombing• Limited selectivity• Typically requires wider aisle and use

of counterbalanced lift truck• Operator training

Disqualified• Cheaper lift truck but racking more

expensive than double deep• Less productive than double deep• Comparable footprint to double

deep• Less flexible than double deep;

greater risk of honeycombing

Pallet Storage (Allied) Alternatives

42

Picking & Fulfillment Alternatives

43


Pocket Sorter for use in picking to VAS and routing to VAS stations (e.g., ITEM and garment consolidation)

• High density• Flexible – simplifies order

mgt/flow (i.e., marshalling and marrying produced ITEMs w/ picked Products)

• Expensive ($$$) Disqualified• Expensive compared to other

alternatives• Increased handling or individual

units• Barcode required on every piece

AutoStore w/ capacity to hold Products and ITEMs or just Products

• High density storage• Reduces pick operators

required• Expandable

• Requires decanting of cases to totes

• Need to adjust building HVAC and current storage

• Multiple touches of ITEMs (if applicable)


Multi-level Pick Module(s) to increase forward pick capacity

• High density; takes advantage of vertical space

• Flexible

• Requires conveyor and routing ($$)

• Minimal impact on reducing picking labor

• Baseline—compared against AutoStore

Cluster Picking of Multiple orders to one cart

• Manhattan to control pick routes and picked items

• Increases throughput

• Potential sortation errors• Operator congestion in pick

aisles

• Disqualified

VAS Material Handling Alternatives

44


T-sort: Robotic item to tote sorting to bring items to work stations

• Can deliver different types to same bin or different bins

• Reduces pick labor required• Flexible; scalable

• Footprint required for robots• Expensive ($$)

• Disqualified

Sortation conveyor bring items from pick to VAS stations and through process

• High speed• Individual orders to individual

locations• Automatic routing

• Conveyor costs relatives to headcount savings

• Footprint for conveyor


See previous slides Cellular Manufacturing • Less Handling• Less Travel• Comparable labor to Linear

• Throughput/bottlenecks in cells


Use Gaylord Bins to ship Finished goods to MC

• Bulk pack, less corrugate• Less packing

• Requires returnable box for better ROI; return trans costs

• TBD

SureSort to sort ITEMs and picked Products

• Large number of sort locations in small footprint

• Scalable, configurable, expandable

• Requires barcode labels on all items to be sorted (e.g., ITEMs)

Disqualified• Expensive compared to

alternatives; min investment > $500K

• Minimal application (ITEM sort only)

Other Material Handling Alternatives

45


Print and Apply Shipping label and manifest label showing the contents inside

• Allows for MC to find items quicker• Shipping label applied and ready

• Cost • Not included in Recommended Design

Unit sortation:From VAS to Hang/Insp and To VAS from picking

• No repack after finishing production• Sorted based on MC• Sorted based on VAS ops

• Lose ability to keep orders together

• Expensive ($$)

• Disqualified

New box sealer with folding arms to close the box and tape it automatically

• No manned box closing station• Taped and closed each time

• Cost • Included in Recommended Concept

In line auto stretch wrapper

• Shrink wrap pallets as they move off the pack line

• Not necessary if time isn’t an issue• Low volume

• Potential future state option

Relocate shipping to NE corner of facility

• Brings shipping closer to production area• Streamlines material flow in building

• Relocate some pick racks, conveyor, etc.


Next Steps• Develop proposal / scope of work for Part B – Design & Simulation

• Simulation & Analysis• Identify bottlenecks & constraints• Refine sizing / requirements of functional areas (AutoStore, VAS/OMU areas,

consolidation, etc.)• Evaluate opportunities to improve design• Update business case

• Design & Implementation Plan• Update & refine layouts • Refine & detail description of operations• Determine system functional requirements (e.g., ManH vs. Exacta)• Develop implementation plan

• Firm Proposal Pricing

• Prepare for Part B

46

Questions?

47

Contact Information

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.bastiansolutions.com

48