{"id":23428,"date":"2020-09-09T21:17:34","date_gmt":"2020-09-09T21:17:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/msi-automate.com\/?p=23428"},"modified":"2022-04-12T16:08:15","modified_gmt":"2022-04-12T16:08:15","slug":"the-case-for-robotics-in-order-fulfillment-and-returns-processing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/msi-automate.com\/the-case-for-robotics-in-order-fulfillment-and-returns-processing\/","title":{"rendered":"The Case for Robotics in Order Fulfillment and Returns Processing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A lot of people in the supply chain industry have been cautiously watching the robotic technology<\/a><\/strong> space for the past few years waiting for a sign that it\u2019s safe to go in the water. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Understandably, the hold-up for many has been finding answers to questions like:<\/p>\n\n\n

    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. Will robotic technology really improve automation efficiencies or just offer a different approach to solving problems already being solved by other equipment?<\/li>\n
    2. Will it be a reliable, sustainable investment? Or will early adopters be saddled with outdated systems as technology advances?<\/li>\n
    3. Will robotics providers go beyond offering anecdotal improvements to specific processes and actually deliver comprehensive solutions that yield a strategic edge?<\/li>\n
    4. Will the providers that dominate during the boom for robotics still be in business after the market consolidates?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n

      And then there are the subjective concerns of companies trying to envision incorporating robots into their operations like:<\/p>\n\n\n

        \n
      1. \n
          \n
        1. How will robotics address and solve their unique automated fulfillment and returns challenges?<\/li>\n
        2. How will they avoid the multiple layers of disparate software that could accompany a combination of task-specific solutions from different providers?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n

          It\u2019s little wonder many have been reticent to embrace this emerging technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          But if you\u2019re one of those who have been waiting for a sign, read on, because in this blog we will not only provide you with answers to the questions above, but also share with you some impressive analysis along with a step-by-step guide to finding the best application for utilizing robotics in your operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Let\u2019s Dive In<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          At MSI Automate we\u2019ve been developing our robotics technology offerings in the same manner we do all our solutions, through extensive evaluation, testing, computer simulation modeling, and analysis of our findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The bottom line for us is always the same: <\/p>\n\n\n

          If we can\u2019t justify a technology by showing real improvements to process and significant reductions in operating costs, we won\u2019t recommend it.<\/p>\n\n\n

          In doing so we have learned many things. The most important of those is that there are a multitude of applications in which robotics can offer impressive improvements in efficiencies over more traditional automated fulfillment processes.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Let\u2019s start there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Impressive Improvements in Efficiencies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          A primary focus of our offerings is to continually find ways to improve the order fulfillment and returns process. So we have spent a good deal of time evaluating whether robotic technology would in fact yield efficiencies over more traditional technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Since goods-to-person stations already enjoy a reputation for maximizing picking efficiencies, such as those seen in ASRS and conveyor supported GTP stations, we challenged ourselves to see if we could improve upon an already proven approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What we found surprised us. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

          In comparing a traditional goods-to-person (GTP) station to an automated mobile robot (AMR) supported GTP (as shown above), we found significant increases in efficiencies in key metrics including the:<\/p>\n\n\n

            \n
          • \n
              \n
            • Number of orders that can be filled at one time.<\/li>\n
            • Requirements for recirculating SKU totes used in the order fulfillment process.<\/li>\n
            • Number of puts per SKU presentation (a key stat in in optimizing GTP productivity).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n
              \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

              Those finding showed that an MSI Automate AMR supported goods-to-person station:<\/p>\n\n\n

                \n
              • \n
                  \n
                • Increases the number of puts per SKU presentation by 2-3X. (i.e. The number of units that can be picked from a SKU tote per presentation to the order picker is 2 \u2013 3 times greater with the AMR supported GTP.)<\/li>\n
                • Reduces the need for recirculating the totes required to fill orders by 50-70%. (i.e. The increased number of puts per presentation significantly reduces the number of tote deliveries needed to fill orders.)<\/li>\n
                • Can support significantly more orders per station 20+ orders at a time versus 10 or less.<\/li>\n
                • Can be easily expanded\/scaled\/moved into a larger deployment effort\/location or even incorporated into an alternate processing strategy like a person-to-goods picking operation.<\/li>\n
                • Can be implemented without changes to an existing warehouse. (Nothing needs to be bolted to the warehouse floor.)<\/li>\n
                • Can even be operated in reverse. (Think returns processing. This is big!)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n