"Before Peak Hits - Fix the Handoffs That Keep Warehouses Waiting"
Experts from AFS Logistics, Crisp, Eyvo, Rootstock Software, Miebach Consulting, Holman, SEER Robotics and Sereact explain how better planning, clearer approvals and automation adapted to existing facilities can help warehouses reduce delays and maintain throughput during peak season.
A warehouse can have inventory available, employees on shift and automation running while orders still wait. The delay may sit in an unapproved purchase, a transaction recorded too late, a pallet that cannot transfer cleanly between systems or a transport plan that no longer matches the delivery window. Those problems become more consequential during peak, when additional volume leaves less room to recover from routine exceptions. Improving warehouse performance therefore requires attention to the connections between decisions, systems and physical movement, alongside the capacity of individual machines.
Start With the Cost of Getting Inventory Into Position
Peak readiness begins before goods reach the receiving dock. Mingshu Bates, Chief Analytics Officer and President of Parcel at AFS Logistics, puts the planning requirement plainly: “Peak season cost is decided well before Q4.” In written comments to The Supply Chainer, she recommended reviewing packaging, carrier contracts, inventory positioning and shipment profiles well ahead of the holiday period. For warehouse operators, those decisions affect the volume arriving at each facility, the packing work required and the cost of meeting outbound commitments.
Barry Bradley, Senior Director of Partnerships and Supply Chain at Crisp, identified data as central to adjusting transport plans when conditions change. “Central to building agility is the ability to gather and process data to make the best decisions on how to move freight - which ports, which modes,” he said. His response discussed comparing a Panama Canal route with Los Angeles and onward intermodal transportation using updated total landed cost calculations. The warehouse implication is that a routing change needs to translate into revised receiving schedules, labor plans and inventory availability expectations.
Domestic shipment decisions create a related trade-off. Mich Fabriga, Vice President of LTL Pricing at AFS Logistics, said consolidating several weekly shipments into one heavier movement could reduce transportation cost per pound. He also distinguished LTL demand patterns from the pronounced retail-driven peak in parcel delivery. Consolidation may improve freight economics, but warehouse managers still need to assess the resulting arrival size, staging requirements and time between replenishments.
A Recorded Request Can Still Be an Operational Bottleneck
A warehouse’s ability to respond also depends on how quickly it can obtain necessary goods and services. Michael Petter, Director at Eyvo, identified the transfer from the manager who understands an urgent purchase to the next budget owner or policy approver as a vulnerable handoff. “It removes idle time, not control,” he said of a visible, time-bound exception process with delegated authority and escalation. The practical requirement is to show who owns the decision, how long it has been waiting and what happens when the designated approver is unavailable.
That distinction matters when an operational team has submitted everything required but cannot move the request forward. Software can make the queue visible, while the organization must establish who is authorized to act on it. An escalation alert has little effect if the recipient lacks approval authority or the context needed to judge urgency. Effective procurement workflows connect the request’s operational consequence with spending limits, required sign-offs and an auditable decision.
Measure Whether the Work Actually Improves
Andy Brabender, Chief Revenue Officer at Rootstock Software, recommends measuring cycle time and transaction accuracy together when assessing ERP-related improvements. “Speed means little if employees are still dealing with mistakes, so both need to improve together,” he said. His adoption test is whether frontline teams record transactions as work happens and use the system consistently instead of maintaining separate spreadsheets. For a warehouse, that makes recording discipline part of execution quality because delayed information can leave supervisors working from an outdated view of progress.
The same process may also behave differently across a warehouse network. Chad Fox, Manager and Delivery Lead at Miebach Consulting, previously told The Supply Chainer in written comments that accumulated operating variation can present a greater standardization challenge than the WMS platform itself. He distinguished genuine business requirements from differences inherited through local habits and workarounds. That distinction helps determine which exceptions deserve support and which should be removed before they become permanent features of the next implementation.
Autonomy Must Fit the Facility Around It
Physical automation introduces another set of interfaces that must work reliably under everyday conditions. Joe Foster, Vice President of Robotics at Holman, said assessments with partner ISEE would consider existing yard trucks’ condition and configuration alongside the customer’s operating environment. Early deployment evaluation would include “safety, productivity, utilization, reliability, and overall economics,” he said. The initial focus is repetitive trailer movements at distribution centers and manufacturing facilities, although the response did not identify a first customer or provide a deployment timetable.
Inside the facility, Miya Gong, Head of Global Marketing at SEER Robotics, described autonomous forklifts moving finished goods at a Schneider Electric manufacturing site in the United States. According to Gong, the application required handling uneven floors, operating around manually driven forklifts and docking precisely with pallets at roller conveyor production lines. She said the deployment combined navigation, obstacle avoidance, customized docking and integration with production logistics. The example identifies concrete engineering requirements, but the response did not provide measured throughput gains, intervention rates or financial savings.
Similar adaptation requirements appear in robotic picking. Mason Cole, Director of Sales, North America at Sereact, said in earlier written responses that a robotic platform needs a standardized core while accommodating differences in station design, material presentation, integrations and operator interaction. His comments concerned deployments across multiple fulfillment facilities, where local conditions affect how the same technology performs. For operators considering expansion, the question is how much engineering and process adjustment must be repeated at the next site.
Evaluate the Complete Flow
Taken together, these responses point toward a broader definition of warehouse readiness. A transport saving needs to survive its receiving consequences, a faster transaction needs to remain accurate, and an autonomous movement needs to connect reliably with the next task. Performance measures should therefore capture waiting, rework, manual intervention and downstream congestion alongside local throughput. The strongest improvement is one that keeps the complete flow moving when volume rises and exceptions arrive together.
