t
ec
h
n
o
lo
g
yr
ev
i
ew
WA
R
EHOU
S
E
SY
S
T
EM
S
Booth 3363
pany that provides the material handling equipment, thus
creating a single point of accountability. (This supplier
could be an integrator or an equipment manufacturer.) At
the same time, these companies should guard against trying
to force the WCS or WES system to manage functions that
lie outside of the system’s prescribed design. Instead, they
should seek out sensible opportunities where the WCS or
WES can manage functionality and take some of the load
off the WMS (but not serve as a substitute for that WMS).
In other words, they should acquire a bona fide WMS and
then let each system do what it does best.
2. Companies buying new material handling equipment and
a WCS, but not a WMS. Other companies may be replacing
their material handling systems but keeping their existing
WMS intact. This presents a great opportunity to acquire
a robust state-of-the-art WES that can potentially plug
some of the functionality gaps that exist within the current
WMS. We see this as one of the limited situations where it
probably makes sense to purchase a true WES—a strategy
that’s easier than attempting to customize a WMS—and
gain some functionality in the process. As with scenario #1,
however, we recommend purchasing a WES from the same
company that provides the material handling equipment.
3. Companies that only want to replace an existing WMS.
A company that already has a material handling system and
WCS/WES in place, but that wants to replace the WMS,
is probably the most likely to be confused by the options
on the market today. In fact, we disagree with some of the
marketing claims being made—namely, that a WES can
handle 95 percent of what a typical WMS handles and do
it for less money. We’re also skeptical of WCS/WES pro-
viders’ claims that if their clients already own a software
license, they can customize and configure that software to
meet the client’s needs. While it may be possible to take a
WCS/WES and make it handle nontraditional functions
(e.g., receiving, putaway, cycle-counting, and picking on
handheld devices), most WCS/WES providers do not have a
track record to prove continued commitment to developing
and managing their products—at least to the same extent
that WMS providers have. Companies may be able to get a
system customized and to the “go live” stage, but the odds
are high that they’ll wind up with a legacy system that can’t
be easily upgraded. A much better approach is to go out and
purchase an overarching WMS that’s built and designed to
manage end-to-end processes within the warehouse or DC.
4. Companies seeking software that can better manage their
existing material handling equipment but that don’t want to
replace their WMS. In this final scenario, the company has
both a WMS and some form of material handling control
software in place, but wants to add a WES to the equation
in order to gain better control over its material handling
equipment. This isn’t a common situation, but it does happen. In this scenario, we recommend searching for a best-of-breed WES system and not feeling constrained by the
need to purchase this system from the same company that
provided the material handling equipment. Because there’s
not as much risk involved on the accountability side (for
the end result), it’s OK to talk to pure WES providers and
then layer the software on top of the existing equipment.
In return, companies will gain newer, better functionality
without having to replace their material handling systems.
START WITH A WISH LIST
With the lines between WMS, WCS, and WES continuing to
blur, and with more operations looking to maximize their
current systems while adding new capabilities in the warehouse, companies should take a good look at their own functional requirements before making any buying decisions.
What functionalities do you need? What are the problems
with your existing systems? How stable are these systems?
By developing a functionality wish list before going too
far down the software acquisition path, software buyers will
be in a good position to evaluate providers and make the
best decisions for their individual operations.
Editor’s note: Ian Hobkirk is the founder and managing
director of Commonwealth Supply Chain Advisors as well as
a blogger for DC VELOCITY. His blog, “Getting it right in the
distribution center,” can be found at http://blogs.dcvelocity.
com/distribution_center/.
