How Much of Your WMS Do You Use?

Warehouse Management Systems (WMS) are reaching serious levels of complexity. More and more is going into them and this is reflected in the price end users are asked to pay. But can customers expect to use every part of any system they buy? If you buy a certain word processing product for around £200 it barely matters if you use all the features. But with a WMS the outlay can be tens or even hundreds of thousands...

At a recent seminar I asked a number of people the extent to which they thought their WMS was being used. Their answers ranged from 40 to 70 per cent utilisation of available functionality. Why would this be? Surely the features in a WMS represent what people actually need and want in logistics? Not necessarily. So why are customers not using significant parts of their system s functionality?

First, many companies have inadequately trained staff who find it difficult to take the system on to a new level. In some cases employees might not have the right aptitude to use a complex software solution. This reduces the potential benefit from systems and users ultimately lose out on their investment. These are problems which a company should resolve quickly. They need to get the vendor back in and pay for more training or get better qualified staff to work with the system. Either way, the cost will be repaid quickly in terms of performance and productivity.

Pressure of time and lack of resource is the second, and perhaps commonest, problem. A WMS might have been implemented to a certain level to get the job done on a daily basis. But due to pressure imposed by the environment, staff have neither time or inclination to grapple with new areas of the system. The lean management operated by many companies (especially in the 3PL sector) only makes this worse. Here it is essential to revisit the reasons for buying the system. Functions that are not used but were originally specified for an anticipated benefit should be identified and a value put on that potential benefit. If this can be valued at £500 per week, for example, the effective loss in profit each year is £26K. In most cases quantifying an unrealised benefit should provide the impetus to deal with it. Call in external specialist help, if necessary, either from the vendor or perhaps an independent project manager who can make things happen quickly for a sensible short term outlay.

Over-the-top functionality is the third reason, and surprisingly common. In many cases customers have simply over-specified their requirements and bought something to match. They eventually find the daily demands of their operation are simpler, leaving functions unused and superfluous. The industry adage that "new users make it complicated, experienced users keep it simple" is very apt.

So much for the problems, what can end users do about them? First, customers frequently under invest in system training. This is a mistake. The reality is that it is not possible to train people (even very able ones) to understand everything in a WMS during pre-live training sessions. Training, especially for more competent operators, should be a continuous process because it provides users with gradual exposure to the system s full potential.

Time must be made available for continued implementation. Nobody denies that logistics is one of the most time-pressured and problem-prone areas within business. But a WMS must be made to earn its corn . The industry strives to keep its warehouses full and its vehicles wheels turning so why not keep an expensive software solution busy too? Regrettably some of the blame needs to be laid at management s door when this does not happen.

Perhaps there is another important conclusion. People should look closely at what they are buying and why. Many WMS suppliers make great play of features available in their systems, although these are often peripheral to the user s key requirement. The marketing pitch would suggest that "warehouses can't possibly function without XYZ". The fact is many people are functioning quite well without XYZ, and a lot of other stuff besides. One reason for this is that many companies warehouse methods have not changed significantly over several years. Their practices and processes have stayed largely the same. But this has not impeded their growth or success. On the contrary, the use of stable and reliable practices has often been a platform for the company s success.

So is it the case that people are buying products that are too complex for their needs? In many ways the answer to the question is yes, and it is quite possible to spend considerable sums doing it. But if the functionality is not required the investment is wasted. The key point is to find a solution that meets current and foreseeable future specifications, but to be very realistic about the requirement. Nice-to-haves that are never used are a waste of money.

Perhaps a more important factor is finding a solution that can be developed when needed. Standard vendor upgrades are good, but they do not always provide the required functions or features. A system that supports customised elements as well as maintaining the potential for upgrades offers greater benefit. Development of unique system elements is made easier by a good design architecture which allows the addition of non-standard features while leaving the upgradeable core solution intact. This is supported, for example, by Tiered Logic where layers of the software application can replace or augment the standard code in order to create new process flows. Ultimately this approach may not necessarily mean a lower cost solution. But it will probably mean that the investment delivers something that is going to be used. And for that reason it represents a better investment.

> Back