Warehouse, Cross Dock and Loading Dock Design

The unglamorous end of the building that quietly makes or breaks safety, service and cost

It’s early. The day shift hasn’t even fully clocked on, but the yard is already tense. A couple of trucks arrive “a bit early” to jump the queue. Another is late and insists they’ll be unloaded first because they’ve got a tight run. A pallet has been left in the truck lane because there’s nowhere else to stage it. Forklifts are weaving through pedestrians. Someone’s holding a door open with a bin. Everyone’s doing their best — but you can feel it: the dock is running the operation, not the other way around.

If that sounds familiar, you’re not alone. Across Australia, many sites run on a mix of good intent, local knowledge and workarounds that have evolved over time. The problem is, workarounds become the operating model, and once that happens, safety risk rises, service gets noisy, and costs creep in everywhere: labour inefficiency, damage, claims, missed deliveries, urgent freight, rework and fatigue.

The good news is that warehouse, cross dock and loading dock design are solvable. Not by “drawing a nicer layout”, but by designing the facility as a system: space, flow, equipment, technology, and the rules that govern it.

This article walks through:

• what “good” looks like for warehouse design, cross dock design and loading dock design
• the design decisions that matter most (and the ones that look important but aren’t)
• common traps that create congestion and WHS exposure
• how to link design choices to practical operating outcomes
• how Trace Consultants can help you go from concept to a facility that actually runs like the picture

Quick definitions (because these get mixed up)

Warehouse design

A warehouse supports storage plus handling: receivals, putaway, replenishment, picking, packing, dispatch, returns and exceptions. A good warehouse design balances:

• throughput (how much moves)
• inventory profile (how much sits, and where)
• service promise (how fast you need to deliver)
• labour and equipment
• resilience for peak, disruption and growth

Cross dock design

A cross dock is designed for flow-through: minimal storage, rapid transfer from inbound to outbound. In a true cross dock, dwell time is measured in hours, not days. Cross docks succeed when variability is managed and the sorting method matches outbound needs.

Loading dock design

A loading dock is the interface between road transport and the facility. It’s where variability enters your system, where WHS risks concentrate, and where minor design shortcomings get amplified daily. Done well, the dock becomes a stable, predictable “engine room”. Done poorly, it becomes the bottleneck that dominates everything.

Part 1: Warehouse design that stays safe and productive under pressure

Warehouse design isn’t just about racking and aisle widths. The best sites start with the operating intent and work backwards.

1) Start with flows, not the footprint

Before you choose doors or aisle layouts, get clear on the flows:

• inbound sources (suppliers, ports, inter-DC transfers, manufacturing)
• outbound channels (stores, e-commerce, wholesale, site supply)
• unit profiles (pallet, carton, tote, each-pick)
• peak patterns (day-of-week, promotions, seasonality, shutdown periods)

Then identify your dominant movement types:

• fast movers vs slow movers
• pallet in/pallet out vs break-pack vs each-pick
• temperature zones (ambient, chilled, frozen)
• value-add and exceptions (kitting, labelling, QA hold, quarantine, damages, returns)

If you can’t explain your top three flows in a few sentences, the warehouse will end up “multi-purpose” in the worst way — meaning congestion, double-handling and constant reshuffling.

2) Make staging explicit (and size it honestly)

Staging is where good operations go to die when it’s undersized.

Most sites “have staging” — it just spills into walkways, fire exits, dock aprons, or the nearest bit of empty floor. That’s not staging; that’s unmanaged storage.

Good design makes staging deliberate:

• inbound staging zones separate from outbound marshalling
• clear, protected pedestrian routes that remain safe even when busy
• defined overflow strategy for peak (where it goes, how it is controlled, who authorises it)

A simple test: if your dock or pick areas rely on staging being empty to stay safe, it won’t stay safe.

3) Design receipting for accuracy, not just speed

Receipting errors are expensive because they ripple into:

• inventory integrity and stock availability
• customer service failures
• supplier disputes and claims
• rework labour and “mystery hunting”
• expedited freight and late-night fixes

Design implications:

• a clear receiving “process spine”: check-in → unload → verify → label → putaway
• adequate space for exception handling (damages, quarantine, QA hold, temperature breaches)
• lighting and visibility fit for scanning and verification
• technology points planned into the workflow (scanning, weigh/measure if needed, photo capture for damages)

Speed is useless if it produces inaccurate stock.

4) Racking, aisle widths and equipment choices should follow the inventory profile

You don’t pick racking; your inventory does.

Key factors:

• pallet types and weights
• SKU velocity distribution (how many fast movers vs long tail)
• replenishment method (bulk to pick face, forward pick, case pick, each pick)
• equipment type (reach trucks, counterbalance, VNA, turret trucks, pallet jacks)
• safety and visibility constraints

A warehouse that mixes incompatible equipment and aisle designs often ends up with “informal rules” that only exist in someone’s head — and those rules break under peak pressure.

5) Don’t forget the “support spaces” that keep the operation stable

Many warehouses under-invest in the spaces that keep people and equipment functioning:

• battery charging areas and ventilation
• MHE parking and maintenance space
• amenities sized for workforce peaks
• training areas and induction points
• IT/telecoms rooms and redundancy planning
• PPE stations and safety equipment placement

When these are missing, they get improvised into operational space — and congestion grows.

6) Design for expansion without reinventing the whole site

If growth is likely, plan for it:

• an expansion path for racking and pick faces
• capacity to add doors later
• knock-out panels or future structural allowances
• yard space that can accommodate more movements without road spillback
• flexibility for future automation (even if you don’t install it now)

The cheapest expansion is the one you planned for. The most expensive is the one you “didn’t think you’d need” and now have to retrofit around live operations.

Part 2: Cross dock design — fast flow, but only if you control variability

Cross docking looks brilliant in a strategy deck: less inventory, fewer touches, faster throughput. In practice, it succeeds when:

• inbound arrival variability is actively managed
• product presentation is consistent (labels, pallet quality, ASN accuracy where applicable)
• the sorting method matches outbound requirements
• there are clear rules for exceptions and late movements

When cross docking makes sense

Cross docking can be effective when:

• inbound supply is stable enough to plan against
• product is already allocated (or can be allocated rapidly) to outbound demand
• the volume density is high enough to keep lanes flowing
• you have consistent packaging and labelling standards

It struggles when:

• inbound is lumpy and unpredictable
• product requires long QA holds or frequent rework
• outbound demand is micro-batched with high fragmentation
• the site becomes a warehouse that pretends it’s a cross dock (and ends up doing both poorly)

Layout choices that matter

Common layouts:

• I-shape: inbound one side, outbound the other — clean flow, but longer travel
• U-shape: inbound/outbound on the same side — can reduce travel and share resources, but increases yard complexity if unmanaged
• T/L-shape: used for constrained sites or phased expansions

Key decisions:

• inbound vs outbound door allocation
• lane depth and the number of sort lanes required
• staging buffers that protect outbound departures
• exception handling zones (damages, missing labels, overs/shorts)
• temperature control requirements (cross docking chilled/frozen adds complexity quickly)

Sorting methods and “touches”

Cross docks often fail because the number of touches wasn’t honestly modelled.

Sorting options include:

• manual “put-to-lane” using pallet jacks or forklifts
• pallet-level sort with dedicated marshalling lanes
• carton/tote sort with conveyors or put walls (when volume and SKU mix justify it)
• hybrid designs where fast movers and promotional lines use different flows

A cross dock should feel calm, even when busy. If it requires constant firefighting, the layout and rules are doing the fighting — not just the people.

The critical bit: rules for variability

Ask these early:

• What happens if an outbound truck is late?
• What’s the cut-off time for same-day transfer?
• Where does overflow go (and who authorises it)?
• What’s held, what’s pushed through, and what triggers escalation?
• What’s the process for supplier non-conformance (labels, pallet quality, timing)?

If you can’t answer these, the facility will answer them for you — and you won’t like the answer.

Part 3: Loading dock design — where safety, service and cost collide

Warehouses get the attention. Cross docks get the excitement. But loading docks decide whether operations are safe and predictable or chaotic and risky.

A useful principle: a well-designed dock sets the rhythm. Trucks don’t “arrive whenever”. They arrive into a controlled system with capacity, rules and accountability.

1) Separate people and vehicles by design

In dock environments, the goal isn’t “be careful”. The goal is to design-out conflicts.

Practical design elements include:

• fixed pedestrian walkways with physical barriers
• dedicated forklift travel paths separated from foot traffic
• defined crossing points (and minimised crossings where possible)
• clear line marking and standardised signage
• lighting designed for early/late operations and poor-weather visibility
• dock edge protection, handrails and anti-slip surfaces where needed

If your safety plan depends on “everyone remembering to do the right thing” during peak congestion, it’s not a safety plan — it’s a hope.

2) Plan doors, levellers and restraints for your fleet reality

Door design should match your vehicle mix:

• rigid trucks, semi-trailers, B-doubles (where applicable), vans, couriers
• tailgate vs dock-height requirements
• palletised vs hand unloads
• temperature control needs (dock seals, air curtains, rapid doors)

Core considerations:

• appropriate dock levellers rated for loads and frequency
• vehicle restraints or procedural controls to prevent drive-offs (depending on site policy and risk profile)
• bumpers and door protection that reduce damage and maintenance
• clear dock numbering and bay assignment standards
• door widths and heights suited to your pallets, cages and MHE

3) Staging is a design decision — not a daily improvisation

The fastest way to create an unsafe dock is to let it become a storage area.

A good dock design has:

• inbound staging sized for realistic peaks
• outbound marshalling sized for realistic peaks
• a defined “clean dock” standard (what’s allowed on the dock, what’s not)
• overflow space that doesn’t compromise pedestrian routes or emergency access

A simple operational rule often works: if it stays on the dock longer than the shift, it’s an exception that needs attention.

4) Dock booking and time-slot discipline are not optional at scale

Without controlled arrivals, docks become a queue-management problem instead of a throughput system.

Dock booking maturity often moves through stages:

• reactive, ad-hoc arrivals, manual check-in, inconsistent turnaround, unclear priorities
• scheduled time slots, bay assignment rules, measured turnaround, accountable ownership
• integrated yard and dock visibility (ETAs, alerts, conformance reporting), with continuous improvement routines

Even modest improvements — enforced time slots and clear priorities — can stabilise flow quickly and reduce congestion.

5) Treat the yard as part of the dock system

You can have a beautiful internal layout and still fail because the yard can’t breathe.

Australian yard realities to design for:

• heavy vehicle turning circles and swept paths
• queue capacity to avoid spillback onto public roads
• noise and curfew constraints (site-by-site)
• driver amenities and fatigue management considerations
• access control and security screening in certain precincts
• contractor movements, waste collection and returns

Key yard design elements:

• separate inbound and outbound routes where possible
• adequate queuing and marshalling space
• clear sight lines at intersections
• safe pedestrian access routes that avoid crossing live traffic lanes
• designated areas for paperwork, check-in or digital kiosks (if used)

6) Don’t ignore “non-core” movements: waste, returns, pallets and cages

Many docks become congested because they were designed only for inbound deliveries — while waste movements, returns, packaging, cages, pallets and contractor tasks fight for the same space.

If waste collection shares the same constrained dock lanes as high-frequency deliveries, congestion and risk rise quickly. Design implications include:

• dedicated waste holding areas and safe access routes
• compactor placement that doesn’t block truck movements
• defined windows for waste collection where possible
• clear ownership of waste flow and contractor controls

Docks that run well treat these movements as first-class citizens in the design.

The operating model is part of the design (whether you like it or not)

A dock isn’t “finished” when the concrete cures. The facility will be shaped daily by:

• who owns the dock and makes real-time decisions
• how arrivals are controlled
• how exceptions are handled
• how supplier and carrier conformance is managed
• what gets measured and acted on

The Dock Manager role: a high-leverage stabiliser

Sites with consistent dock performance typically have clear ownership:

• safety controls and enforcement
• bay allocation and priority decisions
• staging discipline and clean dock standards
• incident and near miss routines
• turnaround measurement and improvement actions

Without ownership, the dock becomes democratic — and that usually means it’s run by urgency rather than rules.

What to measure (so the dock improves rather than repeats itself)

Practical dock KPIs include:

• truck turnaround time (by carrier and by time slot)
• booking conformance (early/late arrivals)
• bay utilisation
• dwell time by supplier type (palletised vs hand unload)
• receipting accuracy and exceptions
• damage rates and claims
• safety observations and near misses

The point isn’t to create a report. The point is to create a rhythm: review, action, improvement.

Common traps (and how to avoid them)

Trap 1: Spending on CAPEX to cover operating model gaps

If arrivals are uncontrolled and ownership is unclear, redesigning the dock might just create a bigger space for the same chaos. Design and operating model need to be developed together.

Trap 2: Under-sizing for average day

Safety risk and congestion don’t rise linearly — they spike when capacity tightens. Design for peak, and design how you’ll manage peak.

Trap 3: Treating “temporary staging” as acceptable

Temporary becomes permanent quickly. If your layout requires constant reshuffling to stay safe, it’s a warning sign.

Trap 4: Forgetting exception flows

Damages, quarantine, QA hold, missing labels, returns, and rework will happen. If you don’t design a place for them, they’ll happen in the worst possible place: walkways and dock lanes.

Trap 5: Designing a cross dock without controlling variability

Cross docks are unforgiving. They need arrival discipline, clear cut-offs, and a sorting approach that matches the outbound promise.

An anonymised example: when dock and “other movements” are designed as a system

In a recent engagement in a large, complex precinct-style operation, congestion and safety exposure at the loading dock were driven as much by “non-core” movements as by deliveries — particularly waste handling and contractor flows sharing constrained space.

By redesigning the end-to-end flow (including how and when waste movements occurred, where materials were held, and how collections were governed) the client achieved a meaningful uplift in operational control and reduced overall waste costs by around 32% (anonymised, results vary by site and baseline). The bigger takeaway wasn’t just the savings — it was that dock performance improved when every movement was treated as part of one system, not a collection of separate problems.

Practical design checklist (use this before you approve any concept)

Warehouse and cross dock

• What are the top 3 flows, and can you trace them without crossing hazards or bottlenecks?
• What does peak look like — and where does overflow go?
• What proportion of volume is pallet vs carton vs each, today and in 3 years?
• Where do exceptions go (quarantine, QA, damages, returns), and are they out of the main flow?
• Does the layout support safe, repeatable work, or does it rely on “common sense” under pressure?
• Can the warehouse expand without relocating core operations?

Loading dock and yard

• Are pedestrians and vehicles separated by design?
• Are staging and marshalling areas sized for realistic peaks?
• Do you have a clean dock standard, and can you keep it under pressure?
• Is dock booking in place (or can it be), and are time slots enforced?
• Who owns the dock end-to-end every day?
• Are waste, returns, pallets, cages and contractor movements designed into the flow?
• Can the yard queue without spilling onto public roads?
• Do your doors, levellers and equipment match your vehicle mix?

How Trace Consultants can help

Warehouse, cross dock and loading dock projects succeed when design, operations and technology are aligned. Trace supports clients across the full journey — from early strategy through to implementation and stabilisation.

1) Strategy and requirements definition

• clarify your service promise and channel strategy
• translate operational intent into a practical requirements set (a functional brief that operations can stand behind)
• define when cross docking is truly viable and what must be true to make it work

2) Capacity modelling and option evaluation

• model throughput, door counts, bay utilisation, staging requirements and yard flow
• stress-test growth scenarios and peak conditions
• compare options with clear trade-offs (CAPEX, labour, safety, resilience, expandability)

3) Dock operating model, governance and KPIs

• design dock booking and time-slot policies that are enforceable
• define dock ownership and decision rights
• create practical routines for performance management and continuous improvement
• lift supplier and carrier conformance without disrupting relationships

4) Technology enablement (kept practical)

• advise on yard, dock and transport visibility options that suit your environment
• support integration thinking across WMS/TMS/YMS where relevant
• design reporting that drives action (not just dashboards)

5) WHS and compliance embedded into the design

• safer segregation of people and vehicles
• controls that reduce reliance on individual behaviour
• operational procedures that match the physical reality of the site
• alignment to Chain of Responsibility obligations in day-to-day practice (not just in policy documents)

6) Implementation support that lands

• stakeholder alignment across operations, property, safety and procurement
• cutover planning and stabilisation support
• training, induction and operational readiness

The goal is simple: a facility that runs safely and predictably on a normal Tuesday — and doesn’t fall apart on a peak Friday.

Frequently asked questions

What’s the biggest mistake organisations make with loading dock design?

Treating the dock as a “doorway” rather than a system. The dock needs controlled arrivals, defined staging, clear ownership, and safe segregation — not just more space.

How do I know if cross docking is right for us?

If inbound is highly variable, product presentation is inconsistent, or outbound is micro-batched and fragmented, cross docking can become expensive chaos. It works best when allocation is clear, arrivals are disciplined, and there’s enough volume density to keep lanes flowing.

Can we improve dock performance without rebuilding?

Often, yes. Booking discipline, time-slot enforcement, staging rules, and clear dock ownership can stabilise flow quickly. Physical changes then become targeted and worthwhile, rather than a blunt instrument.

How do we design for growth when we’re not sure what growth looks like?

Use scenarios. Design a base case that runs well today, and a growth case that shows what needs to change (doors, staging, yard, automation readiness). Build “expansion paths” into the layout.

Closing thought

The warehouse gets the attention. The cross dock gets the ambition. But the loading dock is where reality shows up — in safety risks, queues, congestion and cost-to-serve.

If your volumes grew by 25% next year, would your dock get safer and more controlled — or would it just get louder?

If you want a clear answer (and a practical path forward), Trace Consultants can help you design a warehouse, cross dock and loading dock that are fit-for-purpose, safe by design, and built to scale.

‍

Warehouse Automation Options – Which one is right for your business?

Warehouse automation has moved from “nice to have” to a serious boardroom conversation across Australia. Labour markets are tight, customer expectations are unforgiving, and the cost of getting fulfilment wrong (late, incomplete, damaged, unsafe) is visible in every dashboard that matters: customer experience, cost-to-serve, working capital and staff retention.

But here’s the trap: automation is not a single decision. It’s a design choice—one that sits at the intersection of your network strategy, building constraints, systems landscape, order profile, and the way your teams actually work at 2am on a Monday when things go sideways.

This article is a practical, vendor-aware guide to the major warehouse automation options and how to choose what’s right for your business. We’ll cover solutions and providers commonly considered in Australia, including Ocado Storage, Attabotics, AutoStore, Dematic, Swisslog, SSI Schäfer, Vanderlande, Geek+, GreyOrange, Daifuku, Mecalux and Hai Robotics. We’ll also share a decision framework you can use to pressure-test the business case—before you commit to a solution that looks brilliant in a demo but struggles in your operation.

Start with the job to be done (not the robot)

Most automation projects disappoint for one simple reason: the organisation buys a machine before it agrees on the problem.

Before you talk to any vendor, get crisp on these questions:

• What constraint are we trying to remove? Labour availability, pick speed, accuracy, storage density, safety, temperature, travel time, congestion, uptime, or all of the above?
• What is the order profile that drives your cost-to-serve? Singles vs multi-line, each-pick vs carton-pick, store replenishment vs eCommerce, wave vs waveless, peakiness, returns volume, service cut-offs.
• What is the product profile? SKU count, velocity distribution, cube/weight variability, fragile items, hazardous goods, expiry/batch requirements, temperature zones, packaging consistency.
• What is the physical reality? Clear height, column grid, slab capacity, fire services, power, IT rooms, mezzanine potential, yard and dock constraints.
• What is the tolerance for downtime and change? Can you afford a cutover? Do you need a parallel run? How seasonal is your peak?
• What does “flexible” mean for you? Ability to scale volume? Add SKUs? Shift channels? Expand the site? Move buildings?

Automation should be the output of this thinking—not the starting point.

A quick map of automation types (and where they fit)

When people say “warehouse automation”, they’re usually mixing a few categories together. Splitting these out makes selection far easier.

1) Mechanisation (lower complexity, faster wins)

Mechanisation improves flow and reduces manual effort without full robotics. Examples include:

• Conveyors and carton handling
• Put walls
• Sortation (shoe sorters, cross-belt, tilt-tray)
• Pick-to-light, voice picking, RF scanning
• Carton erectors, lid closers, labellers

Mechanisation can deliver meaningful productivity and safety improvements, often with less integration complexity than robotics—especially if your process discipline and data quality aren’t where they need to be yet.

2) Goods-to-person (GTP)

GTP brings inventory to a stationary picker/packer. This reduces walking and can increase pick rates and accuracy. It tends to shine when:

• You have high eCommerce volume (especially single-line orders)
• You have constrained labour or high travel time
• You want tighter control of quality (scan discipline, verification, put-to-light)

GTP options include cube-based systems (often associated with AutoStore), grid-based systems (often associated with Ocado Storage), and 3D robotic storage concepts (often associated with Attabotics), along with shuttle-based AS/RS designs used by many integrators.

3) AS/RS (Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems)

AS/RS automates storage and retrieval for pallets, cartons or totes using cranes, shuttles, or high-density storage modules. It can work well when:

• You need high-density storage (expensive footprint)
• You have stable product dimensions and packaging
• You can commit to building integration and capex
• You need repeatable, high uptime operations

4) AMRs and AGVs (Autonomous Mobile Robots / Automated Guided Vehicles)

AMRs move around the warehouse without fixed infrastructure. They can:

• Move totes/carts to reduce walking
• Support “pick assist” workflows
• Move pallets and replenish zones
• Increase flexibility if your layout changes

Providers in this space often include Geek+, GreyOrange and Hai Robotics (among others), plus many integrators offering AGV/AMR ecosystems.

5) Robotic piece picking (the frontier—powerful, but not always “plug and play”)

Robotic arms with vision systems can pick individual items. This is improving rapidly, but success depends heavily on:

• Packaging consistency (shapes, reflectivity, fragility)
• Item presentation (bin/tote configuration)
• Exception handling (what happens when a robot can’t pick?)

This category is increasingly relevant, but it’s still an area where pilots and proof-of-value matter.

Providers vs integrators: who actually delivers the outcome?

A useful distinction:

• Technology providers supply a core automation product (robots, grid, shuttles, software stack).
• System integrators design the end-to-end solution, engineer it into your building and processes, integrate systems (WMS/WCS/WES), and commission the site.

In practice, large automation programs involve multiple parties: a provider, an integrator, and your internal teams (ops, IT, safety, finance, property). The real risk sits in the seams—interfaces, responsibilities, change management, and commissioning.

Comparing major automation options (where they typically fit)

Below is a practical view of the named solutions and providers. It’s not a feature checklist—it’s a “fit for purpose” lens.

AutoStore (and similar cube-storage concepts)

What it is: High-density storage using a cube grid, with robots on top retrieving bins and delivering them to ports (goods-to-person).

Where it typically fits well:

• High SKU count with many “small-to-medium” items
• eCommerce or spare parts fulfilment with lots of each-picks
• Sites where footprint is expensive and density matters
• Operations chasing consistent throughput and accuracy

Watch-outs to plan for:

• The grid can become a strategic asset—great if your growth assumptions are right, painful if your business model changes.
• Exception handling still matters: oversized items, fragile items, awkward packaging.
• Port design and replenishment discipline are as important as the robots.

When it’s often the right call: When travel time is your enemy and your order profile rewards fast, controlled each-picking with high density.

Ocado Storage (grid-based automated fulfilment)

What it is: Grid-based automated storage and retrieval designed for high-throughput fulfilment, commonly associated with grocery-style operations but adaptable depending on design.

Where it typically fits well:

• Very high throughput environments
• Tight customer cut-offs and high service expectations
• High “flow” operations where throughput and orchestration matter as much as storage
• Businesses prepared for a larger, more engineered solution

Watch-outs to plan for:

• This is not a “small project”. You’ll need strong governance, engineering readiness, and robust upstream planning.
• The business case must include commissioning risk, ramp-up curves, and peak contingency.

When it’s often the right call: When you’re running a high-volume fulfilment engine and you need a step-change in throughput, not just incremental efficiency.

Attabotics (3D robotic storage and fulfilment concept)

What it is: A 3D storage and retrieval approach that aims to combine density with robotic movement, often positioned as a modern alternative to traditional AS/RS layouts.

Where it typically fits well:

• Businesses seeking a high-density, highly automated GTP-style solution
• Networks with significant growth and a desire to “design once, scale hard”

Watch-outs to plan for:

• As with any highly engineered system, ensure you pressure-test maintainability, spares strategy, local support, and ramp-up risk.
• Validate how the solution handles your exceptions and variability, not just the “happy path”.

When it’s often the right call: When density and throughput are strategic, and you’re ready to invest in engineered automation with a clear operating model behind it.

Dematic, Swisslog, SSI Schäfer, Vanderlande, Daifuku, Mecalux (major integrators / solution houses)

These organisations typically deliver end-to-end engineered automation—often combining conveyors, sortation, shuttles, AS/RS cranes, pallet handling, software controls, and integration services.

Rather than thinking of these as “single products”, think of them as design-and-deliver partners.

Where they typically fit well:

• Large DCs with mixed flows (pallet in, carton out, store + eCom, returns)
• Sites needing conveyors + sortation + AS/RS in one coherent solution
• Businesses that need bespoke engineering around building constraints
• Operations with clear standards and governance discipline

Watch-outs to plan for:

• Scope clarity is everything. Ambiguity in interfaces (WMS/WCS/WES, MHE boundaries, IT infrastructure, civil works) can blow out cost and timelines.
• Make sure the solution is designed around your order profile and labour model, not a generic reference design.
• Plan for operational readiness: training, maintenance, spares, and support model.

When they’re often the right call: When your problem is bigger than a single technology—when you need a designed system that orchestrates multiple flows reliably.

Geek+ and GreyOrange (AMR-led warehouse automation)

What it is: Autonomous mobile robots supporting pick-assist, goods movement, putaway, replenishment, and sometimes sortation workflows—typically with software to orchestrate tasks.

Where they typically fit well:

• Rapidly changing environments where flexibility matters
• Sites where you want to automate travel without major fixed infrastructure
• Businesses that want to scale gradually (add robots as volume grows)
• Operations seeking a faster time-to-value than engineered AS/RS

Watch-outs to plan for:

• AMRs don’t automatically fix bad slotting, bad replenishment, or poor master data.
• Traffic management, congestion, and safety design must be engineered, not assumed.
• Integration still matters (especially if you need orchestration across zones).

When it’s often the right call: When you want a flexible automation layer that reduces walking and boosts throughput without rebuilding the whole warehouse.

Hai Robotics (and similar tote-to-person / robotic ASRS variants)

What it is: Robot-driven storage and retrieval models that often sit between classic GTP and AS/RS—frequently used for tote handling and high-density storage with flexible deployment.

Where it typically fits well:

• eCommerce and omni-channel fulfilment
• High SKU environments needing density and speed
• Businesses seeking scalable automation without the same fixed grid constraints as some alternatives

Watch-outs to plan for:

• As with any tote-based automation, validate your cartonisation/pack process, exception handling, and replenishment model.
• Confirm local support, spares, and maintenance capability.

When it’s often the right call: When you need high-density, high-speed each-pick fulfilment with a modular pathway to scale.

The decision framework: choosing what’s right (without getting dazzled)

Here’s a practical way to shortlist options that actually suit your operation.

Step 1: Match the solution to your order profile

• High volume, each-pick, tight cut-offs: Goods-to-person (AutoStore, Ocado Storage, Attabotics, tote-to-person systems), plus sortation and packing automation.
• Mixed store + eCom, heavy cartons, multiple temperature zones: Integrated solutions (Dematic, Swisslog, SSI Schäfer, Vanderlande, Daifuku, Mecalux) combining conveyors, sortation, shuttles, pallet automation.
• Fast-changing layout, need quick wins: AMRs (Geek+, GreyOrange, Hai Robotics) plus targeted mechanisation.
• Pallet-heavy operations (inbound, bulk storage, high reach): Pallet AS/RS, shuttle systems, AGVs for pallet movement, and strong dock-to-stock process redesign.

Step 2: Be honest about variability and exceptions

Automation loves consistency. Your warehouse probably isn’t consistent.

Make a list of the “awkward stuff”:

• Oversized and weird-shaped SKUs
• Fragile items, liquids, or crush risk
• Promotional spikes and kitting
• Returns grading and rework
• Quality checks, compliance labelling
• Split-case picking vs full-case
• Temperature transitions

Your automation solution doesn’t need to handle 100% of tasks, but it must handle the right 80–95% while leaving a workable path for the rest.

Step 3: Pressure-test the business case (the numbers people forget)

A credible automation business case includes far more than “labour savings”.

Common value drivers:

• Reduced travel time and higher pick rates
• Improved accuracy and fewer credits/returns
• Better space utilisation (avoid a new building or defer expansion)
• Safety improvements and reduced manual handling
• Longer cut-off times and improved service (revenue protection)
• Reduced reliance on labour hire during peak
• Better inventory integrity (less shrink, fewer write-offs)

Common costs and risks that get missed:

• Building works (slabs, fire, power upgrades, mezzanines)
• Systems integration (WMS/WCS/WES), testing and environments
• Maintenance labour, spares, service contracts, and lifecycle refresh
• Operational downtime during cutover and commissioning ramp-up
• Process redesign effort, training, and change management
• Peak contingency (how you’ll fulfil orders if automation is down)
• Data cleansing and master data governance (it’s never “good enough” until you try to automate)

If you don’t quantify these, you don’t have a business case—you have a hope.

A note on outcomes: what “good” can look like (when done properly)

Across automation and warehouse technology programs, the strongest outcomes usually come from a combination of process discipline + systems enablement + the right level of mechanisation/automation—not from robotics alone.

For example, in one Australian operation, a warehouse technology uplift materially reduced manual handling (around the 90% mark) once the process design and controls were aligned with the physical site. In another case, operational changes combined with system improvements delivered a step-change in supplier on-time performance (order flow stabilisation can be just as valuable as pure pick speed).

The point isn’t the exact percentage. The point is that measurable results are achievable—but only when the solution is designed around your reality, not a generic template.

How Trace Consultants can help (and why “solution agnostic” matters)

Warehouse automation decisions have long tails. Once you pour the slab, sign the contract, and train the workforce, the solution becomes part of your operating model for years. That’s why independent, fact-based decision support is so valuable.

Trace Consultants typically supports clients across four practical stages:

1) Strategy and option framing (before vendors shape the narrative)

• Confirm the job to be done, constraints, and success measures
• Map current flows and quantify the real drivers of cost-to-serve
• Build a shortlist of automation concepts that match the order profile
• Identify prerequisites (layout, master data, slotting, replenishment rules, systems)

2) Business case development you can defend

• Create a scenario model: “do nothing”, “process only”, “mechanisation”, “automation”
• Quantify capex, opex, productivity, service impacts, and implementation risk
• Build a benefits realisation plan (who owns what, when benefits land, how to track them)

3) Vendor and integrator selection (without the theatre)

• Turn requirements into a structured RFx process
• Compare solutions on fit, not just features
• Validate assumptions with site data, not generic benchmarks
• Clarify interfaces and responsibilities to avoid scope gaps

4) Delivery governance and operational readiness

• Program governance, risk management and stage gates
• Testing strategy, cutover planning, and hypercare approach
• Workforce change management and readiness
• Performance measurement post go-live to lock in benefits

The best automation projects feel “boring” in governance terms—because risks are surfaced early, decisions are documented, and operations are prepared well before the first robot arrives.

Practical selection checklist (use this in your next workshop)

If you want a simple way to keep selection grounded, ask each provider/integrator these questions:

1. Show us how the solution handles our exceptions (not just the ideal flow).
2. What does peak look like, and what breaks first?
3. What assumptions are you making about our replenishment and slotting?
4. What is the integration architecture (WMS/WCS/WES), and who owns each interface?
5. What is the maintenance model (spares, uptime SLAs, local support, escalation paths)?
6. What is the commissioning ramp-up curve, and what contingency do we need?
7. What are the building prerequisites (power, floor, fire, height, temperature control)?
8. What data quality is required (dimensions, weights, barcodes, serialisation, batch/expiry)?
9. What operational roles change, and what training is required?
10. What does a bad day look like, and how do we keep shipping?

Good vendors can answer these clearly. Great integrators can show you how they’ll make it real in your building, with your people, under your constraints.

The bottom line

Warehouse automation can be transformative—but only if you treat it as an operating model decision, not a procurement exercise. The “right” solution is the one that matches your order profile, respects your constraints, integrates cleanly with your systems, and comes with a realistic path through commissioning and change.

If you’re weighing options like AutoStore, Ocado Storage, Attabotics, or AMR-based approaches from Geek+, GreyOrange or Hai Robotics—or considering an engineered automation program through Dematic, Swisslog, SSI Schäfer, Vanderlande, Daifuku or Mecalux—start with the job to be done, build a defensible business case, and pick the solution that fits your reality.

And if you’d like a vendor-agnostic partner to help you frame the options, model the business case, and run a clean selection and delivery process, Trace Consultants can help.

Question to close: If you made the decision today, would you still be confident in the business case when peak hits—and the warehouse is under pressure?

‍

Warehouses carry the physical weight of the supply chain. When they work well, flow is smooth, labour is productive, and inventory supports service rather than constraining it. When they don’t, inefficiencies compound quickly. Warehouse performance is rarely accidental it is designed, or not designed, into the operation.

Why warehouse design and operations matter more than ever

Across industries, warehouses are being asked to do more with less. Higher volumes, tighter service expectations, labour constraints, and rising costs are placing pressure on facilities that were never designed for today’s operating reality.

When processes aren’t optimised, the impacts are immediate and visible:

• Congestion slows throughput
• Excess handling drives labour costs
• Inventory errors cause stockouts or overstocking

Many organisations compensate by adding temporary space, external storage, or manual workarounds. That increases cost and complexity, rather than fixing the root cause.

Warehouse logistics and operations sit at the intersection of people, process, systems, and data. When those elements are misaligned, performance suffers. When they are designed together, warehouses become a source of efficiency and resilience rather than risk.

‍

Performance starts with understanding how the warehouse actually runs

Effective warehouse improvement doesn’t start with racking layouts or automation concepts, it starts with understanding how the operation performs today.

That means looking beyond floor plans and into the reality of daily work:

• How goods move through the facility
• Where time is lost
• How space is used, and misused
• Where labour effort is concentrated, and where it adds little value

Time and motion studies, cost-to-serve analysis, and current-state assessments provide a factual baseline. They surface bottlenecks that aren’t always obvious and quantify the trade-offs between space, labour, and service. Without this foundation, design decisions are based on assumptions rather than evidence.

Designing warehouses for flow, not just storage

Many warehouses are designed primarily around storage capacity. Performance however is driven by flow. 

Efficient warehouses align layout, processes, and labour around how goods are received, stored, picked, staged, and dispatched. Poorly aligned layouts create unnecessary travel, double handling, and disconnected workflows that erode productivity and increase risk.

Designing for flow means modelling capacity across storage areas, operational zones, staging space, and docks. It means testing how different layouts perform under real demand scenarios, not just average volumes. It also means ensuring that space design supports safe operations and future growth, rather than locking in constraints.

Warehouse design decisions made today have long-term implications. Getting them right upfront avoids costly retrofits and operational compromises later.

Aligning people, processes, and space

Warehouses tell a story about how a business runs. They reflect decision-making, priorities, and trade-offs, whether intentional or not.

Sustainable performance comes from aligning people, processes, and space design. Labour models need to match operational reality. Processes must be clear, repeatable, and supported by layout. Technology and automation should reinforce good design, not compensate for poor flow.

When these elements are aligned, warehouses become easier to run, easier to scale, and more resilient to disruption. When they aren’t, even well-intentioned investments struggle to deliver value.

From operational insight to measurable improvement

Strong warehouse logistics and operations work turns insight into action. Current-state analysis informs design. Design informs investment decisions. Investment delivers measurable performance gains.

The outcome is not just a better layout, but:

• Reduced congestion
• Lower handling costs
• Improved accuracy
• Facilities that support growth without constant firefighting

Performance improves because the operation is designed to work, not because people are working harder to overcome structural issues.

Make every square metre count

Warehouse performance is not about squeezing more into the same space at any cost. It’s about making space work smarter, safer, and more efficiently. When warehouse design and operations work in harmony, efficiency follows naturally. Bottlenecks are removed. Flow improves. Labour effort is better utilised. The warehouse supports the business, rather than constraining it.

Design it with intent, and every square metre starts pulling its weight.

Download the full statement

A concise, shareable overview of our Warehouse Logistics and Operations capabilities and how we help clients deliver real results.‍

→ Download the Warehouse Logistics & Operations Capability Overview

Start a conversation

If you’re planning a warehouse change or performance improvement, talk to Trace about designing it right from the start.‍

→ Contact us