Managing Short-Notice Events in Warehouse Operations
The following table identifies four short-notice events that can cause operational requirements and performance to change negatively and possible countermeasures that can be taken to minimize that impact/meet the changed requirements.
| Disruptive Short-Notice Event | Countermeasures/Disruption Minimization Action |
| Vehicular failure | Inbound and outbound vehicles can break down. Such events are outside the practical control of warehouse management. However, contracted carriers can be given KPIs that reward punctuality. These can promote good practice on the part of carriers, incentivizing them to invest in reliable, sophisticated vehicles and carry out pre-emptive maintenance on them. Warehouse management can conduct some immediate mitigation activities, if conditions permit. They can contact any downstream parties likely to be affected by the delay and provide revised ETAs. They can evaluate safety stock levels and authorise the use of reserves. They can reschedule despatches to clear backlog and thus maximise the use of the slack created by the delay. Later, warehouse management can advise higher management to switch to another carrier if the problem is persistent or the solution offered by the current carrier is unconvincing. |
| MHE failure | In automation-heavy warehouses, failure of MHEs or automation equipment can create serious efficiency losses. These are best prevented by requirement planning, design, and the selection of reliable, effective equipment suppliers/manufacturers. On-site maintenance and repair staff – ideally employed by the equipment manufacturer or at least qualified by them – are the best immediate solution to MHE/automated system failures. Following that, nearby qualified third-party repair staff are the second-best option. Impact-mitigation options are limited, however, in the case of crucial equipment failure. In such event, managers can only allocate manual labour to operations that are manually possible and design safe and effective temporary workarounds. What can be manually fulfilled, should be. Full redundancy systems are rarely available, so the system should be analysed for points of failure, and formal contingency checks, diagnostics, recovery, and bypass procedures should be in place. If the whole system can fail at a single point (a critical bottleneck), then a significant redesign is warranted. In the moment, managers can contact any downstream parties likely to be affected by the delay and provide revised ETAs. They can evaluate safety stock levels and authorise the use of reserves. They can reschedule despatches to clear backlog and thus maximise the use of the slack created by the delay. Later, they can advise management to switch to another MHE supplier if the problem is persistent or the supplier’s remedial response is unsatisfactory. |
| Manufacturer/supplier delay | As with vehicular failure, the warehouse manager has little influence over the likelihood of this event. S/he can however, depending on the nature of the goods being ordered, recommend that goods are switched for their nearest replacements. In grocery supply, this is often possible, if the end customer has previously agreed to receive substitute items. With generic goods, this is also a possibility, and can be authorised by the warehouse manager if consent from the buyer/end consumer has been obtained. (Even if consent has been obtained through small print or is assumed through industry convention, it is still good practice to advise the customer of intention to substitute, ahead of despatch. This prevents protest on the part of a disappointed customer and costly reversals. If a particular supplier has a track record of poor fulfilment, the warehouse manager can inform higher management about this. A switch to a more dependable supplier might then occur. Immediate mitigation methods are similar to those already described in 1. and 2. (above): managers can contact downstream parties to inform them of the delay and provide revised ETAs or offer substitutes. They can review safety stock levels and authorise the use of reserves. They can postpone planned receipting tasks and allocate the staff to clearing backlog. |
| Staff sickness | If significant numbers of staff are absent due to sickness, then the manager faces a problem whose severity inclines with the volume of load to be managed. Delays will result. All operations will run more slowly if the requisite labour is not present. Fewer workers means more work for those who are present. Exasperation and exhaustion can result. Overworked staff are also more prone to accidents and injury. In such a situation, management has very limited options. The first option is unpopular with staff but sometimes unavoidable: staff who are well but taking leave can be contacted and asked to work, with overtime rates as compensation or some similar incentivizing offer. Staff who are present need to be work-loaded very carefully so that their labour is maximised, but difficult or tiring tasks are shared evenly and transparently. Managers will need to inform upstream and downstream partners of likely delays and, if possible, request rescheduling of inbound and outbound operations. |