A SOFTWARE EVOLUTION
To understand how the market has evolved, it helps to
know a little bit about its history. In the past, companies
used WMS as the overarching solution to run their warehouses, and WCS to interface with the machines in that
warehouse. These were two distinct systems. Over the last
10 years, however, both WCS and WES providers have
improved their products to the point where some look
and act like WMS. By enhancing WCS and using creative
marketing messages to sell their systems, software vendors
have both opened up opportunities for user companies
and made the software selection process more confusing
for them.
On the plus side, some WCS and WES providers have
standardized their products, developed new versions, and
enhanced their offerings. By using a common underlying
code base from one project to the next (instead of a series
of custom-built applications), they can roll out system
enhancements to all users at once. These are all benefits for
companies that have a non-customizable WMS in place or
that are using a WCS and need greater functionality.
On the minus side, these developments have led to some
market confusion. Because it’s getting harder to discern
among the choices—and because more vendors are pitching their products as the “complete solution” to a client’s
warehouse management challenges—selecting the right
solution (or solutions) is becoming more difficult for
buyers. There are also more opportunities to try to put a
“square peg in a round hole,” if you will, by using software
that’s really not capable of handling specific functions in a
sustainable manner.
FOUR ACQUISITION SCENARIOS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Further complicating the picture, companies find themselves in a variety of situations with respect to the warehouse software acquisition process, making it impossible to
provide a universal set of purchasing guidelines. Some are
buying a new WMS and material handling systems at the
same time, while others are buying new material handling
equipment and a WCS, but not a WMS. Still others either
want to replace their WMS or need software that can better
manage advanced warehousing functionality (e.g., directed
putaway or waving) but aren’t interested in replacing their
WMS or material handling equipment (and WCS).
To help companies better understand their choices and
make the best possible purchasing decision, we offer some
recommendations tailored to each of these four “acquisi-
tion scenarios.” They are as follows:
1. Companies purchasing a new WMS and material
handling equipment at the same time. With many WMS
installations hitting or passing the 10-year mark, companies in search of better functionality and capabilities may
be acquiring a WMS and buying new material handling
equipment simultaneously. The best bet in this case is to
purchase their WCS or WES system from the same company 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 providers’ 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
