Syllabus

Warehousing · 2026–2027

Name: Warehousing
Level: Master of Science
Programme: Industrial Engineering and Management
Faculty: Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS)
Academic year: 2026–2027
Module: 202400647 (see in the UT course catalogue)
Credits (ECTS): 5

Teaching team

Lecturers

Aim

This course teaches the concepts and quantitative methods used to design, manage, and operate warehouses.

Intended learning outcomes

After successful completion of the course, the student is able to:

  1. Explain the role of warehousing in supply chains and identify warehouse types, functions, and operations.
  2. Discuss major planning, design, management, and control decisions in contemporary warehouses.
  3. Discuss storage and material handling objectives, principles, and technology.
  4. Explain how environmental, market, and technology changes affect warehouse decisions.
  5. Implement quantitative methods to optimize distribution networks and warehouses’ design, management, and operations.
  6. Analyze relevant data and evaluate performance metrics to support decision-making in a warehousing environment.
  7. Synthesize and critically evaluate warehousing research to support a recommendation.

Requirements

The course requires elementary computer programming: conditional statements, loops, local and global variables, functions, and procedures.

IEM students are expected to have followed (or take in parallel) Operations Research 1: Deterministic Optimization and Heuristics (201800003).

Study load (ECTS)

The Warehousing course has a total study load of 5 ECTS1 (140 hours). Table 1.1 shows the estimated study load per activity.

Table 1.1: The planned activities total 140 study hours.
Activity Number Duration (h) Workload (h)
Lectures (including planned guest sessions) 12 2 24
Practicals/tutorials 9 2 18
WH-AS1 - Diagnosis and Activity Profiling 1 10 10
Final-report requirements WH-AS2 through WH-AS5 4 10 40
Peer feedback and assignment revision 2 4 8
Weekly self-study 7 3 21
Exam preparation 1 16 16
Final exam 1 3 3
Total 140

Schedule: 2026–2027

The teaching period runs from week 36 through week 43 of 2026. The weekly topics and dates below follow the published course sequence. Exact times, rooms, guest sessions, examination appointments, and any formally communicated changes are published in TimeEdit and Canvas.

All project requirements, rubrics, the report structure, code requirements, and the current warehouse data are visible from Wednesday, 2 September 2026. WH-AS2 through WH-AS5 have recommended checkpoints rather than separate submission deadlines.

Table 1.2: Weekly teaching and assessment plan. WH-AS2 through WH-AS5 dates are recommended progress checkpoints, not submission deadlines. Canvas remains authoritative for submissions and formally communicated changes; TimeEdit remains authoritative for scheduled appointments.
Week and dates Lecture topic Project activity or assessment
W36 · 31 August–6 September Warehouse Operations and Performance Diagnosis The project requirements and current data become available on Wednesday, 2 September. Begin WH-AS1.
W37 · 7–13 September Distribution Network Design and Warehouse Location–Allocation Develop the WH-AS1 diagnosis, activity profiles, and KPIs. Guest session: Warehouse Planning and Improvement, Wednesday, 9 September, 15:45–17:30.
W38 · 14–20 September Storage Systems, Policies, and Storage Location Assignment Formative WH-AS1 draft and peer review; follow the deadlines and instructions in Canvas. Begin WH-AS2.
W39 · 21–27 September Storage Space Requirements, Forward–Reserve Allocation, and Replenishment Work on WH-AS2.
W40 · 28 September–4 October Warehouse Sizing, Layout, and Material-Handling System Design Recommended WH-AS2 checkpoint: Friday, 2 October. Begin WH-AS3.
W41 · 5–11 October Order-Picking System Design and Control Recommended WH-AS3 checkpoint: Friday, 9 October. Begin WH-AS4.
W42 · 12–18 October Robotized and Automated Warehouse Systems Recommended WH-AS4 checkpoint: Friday, 16 October. Begin WH-AS5. Guest session: ADAPTO and Warehouse Automation, Monday, 12 October, 15:45–17:30.
W43 · 19–25 October Exam Preparation and Assignment Work Recommended WH-AS5 checkpoint: Friday, 23 October. Integrate the report and code.
W44 · 26 October–1 November Assessment period Final exam: Monday, 26 October, 13:45–16:45. Final report and individual peer review; follow the deadlines and instructions in Canvas.
W45 · 2–8 November Project-defence period Individual oral defence; exact appointment and room to be confirmed.

There are only two project upload events: the formative WH-AS1 draft and the final graded report-and-code package. The exam and oral defence are scheduled individual assessments.

Assessment

The assessment consists of two equally weighted components:

  • one integrated group project: 50%; and
  • one closed-book multiple-choice exam: 50%.

The project has only two upload events: a formative WH-AS1 draft for peer review and one final graded report-and-code package. WH-AS2 through WH-AS5 are requirements for parts of that final package; they are not separate submissions.

Integrated group project (50%)

Teams of three analyse and improve one real warehouse using the current supplied data. The final package contains five connected parts:

  1. WH-AS1 - Diagnosis and Activity Profiling: establish the operational baseline;
  2. WH-AS2 - Storage Location Assignment and Space Requirements: represent the storage operation, design the storage-location-assignment intervention, and determine the storage locations each SKU requires;
  3. WH-AS3 - Layout Design: structure and evaluate a feasible layout intervention;
  4. WH-AS4 - Order-picking improvement: evaluate picking strategies for the current warehouse and retained design proposals; and
  5. WH-AS5 - Intervention Trade-off Analysis: compare the interventions and formulate the management implications.

Each part has a separate 10-point rubric. The teaching team applies the five rubrics to the corresponding report and code evidence, allowing partial credit within every part. Together they provide the 50 raw coursework points. The report and code quality rubric allows a deduction of up to 5 raw coursework points from that total. Each underlying defect is assessed once, and the coursework score cannot fall below zero.

The final assessed package consists of:

  • one concise management report of no more than 12 pages, submitted as a PDF with its complete LaTeX project; and
  • code with one documented entry point that processes the original files in data/raw/ and generates and saves the evidence used in the report, including KPIs, data tables, chart data, and charts.

Teams are free to use any tools or programming language, as long as the evidence used in the report is generated automatically and saved in a folder. Give brief setup instructions, one command to generate the evidence, and its output location. Import or copy the evidence into the LaTeX report. Follow the final project file requirements for submission details.

The report is an integrated management argument, not a collection of five disconnected assignment answers. Teams may curate, combine, and reorganize the most decision-relevant insights from their work. The supporting code must still contain the analyses needed to verify the claims and the applicable rubric criteria.

All five requirement descriptions and their rubrics are visible from the beginning. Recommended checkpoints support planning, but only the WH-AS1 draft and WH-FINAL have project submission deadlines.

WH-AS1 formative review and eligibility condition

Teams submit a complete formative WH-AS1 notebook and frozen PDF. A complete submission addresses every required activity profile and KPI, although the final report may later select and synthesize the strongest insights. Completing WH-AS1 is a team-level eligibility condition for the WH-AS1 part of WH-FINAL to be graded. If the team does not complete WH-AS1, every team member receives 0 points for that report part.

Each student then completes two assigned peer reviews. The peer scores and comments are advice, not official marks; the teaching team evaluates the revised WH-AS1 evidence in the final package using the percentage-weighted WH-AS1 rubric.

A student receives the team’s WH-AS1 rubric score only if that student completes both assigned reviews by the peer-feedback deadline. A student who does not complete both reviews receives 0 points for WH-AS1. This condition is applied individually and does not reduce another team member’s score.

Individual oral defence

The oral defence verifies each student’s ownership and understanding of the complete report and code. It does not add points beyond the 50-point coursework total. If a student cannot substantiate particular submitted evidence, the corresponding rubric criteria may be reduced or withheld for that student. Poor English, nervousness, or presentation style alone does not justify a reduction.

No supplementary oral is offered within the first assessment opportunity. Any subsequent assessment opportunity follows the approved assessment schedule and the applicable Education and Examination Regulations.

Final exam (50%)

The closed-book final exam uses multiple-choice questions and covers the complete course. A dictionary and non-programmable calculator are allowed.

Final report rubrics

The teaching team applies each rubric to the corresponding part of the final management report and its supporting code. WH-AS1 assesses the diagnosis and the evidence supporting operational or analytical choices. WH-AS2 through WH-AS4 adapt the corresponding previous-year assignment rubrics to the current warehouse data; WH-AS5 uses a new integration rubric.

Teams may curate and reorganize their strongest insights to build one coherent management argument. The report does not need to repeat every intermediate output, but the report and supporting code together must provide enough traceable evidence to evaluate every applicable rubric criterion.

For WH-AS2, WH-AS3, and WH-AS5, each criterion is worth 2 points:

  • 2 points: complete, correct, and decision-relevant evidence;
  • 1 point: partially convincing evidence with a material omission, weakness, or minor error; and
  • 0 points: missing evidence or evidence that is materially incorrect, infeasible, or unsupported.

Execution and packaging deficiencies are assessed once under the report and code quality deduction. The assignment rubrics assess analytical correctness and the evidence supporting the conclusions.

WH-AS1 - Warehouse Diagnosis (10 Points)

Assess the diagnostic argument using the management report and its supporting analytical evidence together. Select the findings needed to explain the operational concern and justify the choices worth investigating. A focused diagnosis can justify a change, retaining current practice or obtaining further evidence. There is no prescribed number or mix of profiles and KPIs in this final-report rubric.

Each criterion is worth 2 points. Excellent earns 100%, Good 80%, Sufficient 60%, Insufficient 30% and Missing 0%. Sufficient states the core; Good adds to Sufficient, and Excellent adds to both. The complete levels and marking guidance apply.

Table 1.3: WH-AS1 diagnosis rubric.
Criterion (2 Points Each) Evidence for Full Credit
Problem Definition Define the operational question that the diagnosis must answer. Full-credit evidence specifies a manageable warehouse activity and data scope, explains the operational importance of the question, and justifies what can be established within that scope. A justified narrow question is sufficient in scale.
Evidence Selection Select evidence that answers the operational question. Full-credit evidence explains the contribution of the selected analytical evidence, prioritizes it by diagnostic importance and considers available findings that could materially qualify or contradict the diagnosis. One decisive finding can be sufficient in scale. Additional charts earn no credit by themselves.
Analytical Validity Establish whether the selected measurements can be trusted. Full-credit evidence defines relevant quantities, units and populations, and periods when time affects interpretation. It uses suitable calculations and technical displays and justifies consequential preparation choices or proxies. Results remain traceable to their data and calculation. The judgment concerns analytical correctness rather than code packaging or general report presentation.
Diagnostic Reasoning Explain what the findings establish about the current operation. Full-credit evidence connects observed patterns, imbalances or constraints into a warranted diagnosis, weighs plausible explanations where relevant, and identifies the uncertainty that matters to the conclusion. A carefully justified statement that the available evidence cannot distinguish explanations is acceptable.
Justification of Choices Explain how the diagnosis informs the next operational or analytical choice. Full-credit evidence gives a proportionate reason to investigate a change, retain current practice or obtain further evidence. It states what remains unverified, what evidence or condition would justify reconsideration, and how that would affect the next decision. Assess the justification whether the choice is to change operations, retain current practice or investigate further.

The team must first complete the formative WH-AS1 submission by addressing every required activity profile and KPI. Without that completed submission, the WH-AS1 part of WH-FINAL is not graded and receives 0 points. In the integrated final report, the team may select and synthesize the most decision-relevant WH-AS1 insights. Each reported result must identify its data scope, assumptions, calculation method and supporting evidence. A student receives the resulting team score only after also completing both assigned peer reviews by the deadline.

WH-AS2 - Storage Location Assignment and Space Requirements (10 points)

Table 1.4: WH-AS2 rubric.
Criterion (2 points each) Evidence expected for full credit
Model scope The representation includes the relevant products, flows, resources, constraints, and performance measures without unsupported detail.
Evidence traceability Every modeled element is linked to supplied data, an explicit assumption, or a documented evidence gap.
Product-assignment logic The proposed policy uses appropriate product and demand characteristics and is stated precisely enough to implement.
Feasibility and evaluation Capacity, compatibility, replenishment, and service constraints are checked, and the intervention is compared with the baseline.
Decision insight The report explains why the product assignment is suitable, where it is sensitive, and what management must monitor.

WH-AS3 - Layout Design (10 points)

Table 1.5: WH-AS3 rubric.
Criterion (2 points each) Evidence expected for full credit
Requirements and capacity Space, storage, throughput, adjacency, and handling requirements are quantified and internally consistent.
Layout logic The proposed arrangement has clear departments, flows, interfaces, and decision rules tied to the storage model.
Quantitative evaluation Distances, space use, congestion proxies, or other relevant measures are calculated correctly against the baseline under consistent assumptions.
Operational feasibility Access, safety, replenishment, staging, and material-handling constraints are addressed.
Decision justification The selected layout is justified against credible alternatives, limitations, and implementation consequences.

WH-AS4 - Order-Picking Improvement (10 points)

Each criterion is worth 2 points, split equally between the two tasks. Task 1 and Task 2 each contribute up to 5 points, for a total of 10 points. The Task 2 score covers all retained design combinations together.

  • 1 point per task: complete, correct, and decision-relevant evidence.
  • 0.5 points per task: partially convincing evidence with a material omission, weakness, or minor error.
  • 0 points per task: missing evidence or evidence that is materially incorrect, infeasible, or unsupported.

Shared baseline definitions, assumptions, code, and sensitivity results may support both tasks without being repeated. One sensitivity analysis is required for AS4 overall; use its results where relevant to the recommendations.

Table 1.6: Evidence for full credit in WH-AS4, with 1 point per task for each of five criteria.
Criterion (2 points each) Task 1: current warehouse (1 point) Task 2: retained designs (1 point)
Process definition Baseline and proposed rules, roles, scope, and assumptions are clear and internally consistent. Picking rules, roles, scope, and assumptions are clear and internally consistent for each retained combination.
Design logic and integration Routing and other picking choices suit the workload and fixed warehouse, with justified methods and assumptions. Picking choices suit the workload and retained storage, layout, and equipment combinations, with justified methods and assumptions.
Quantitative evaluation Implemented feasible routes support correct, fair comparisons using appropriate measures of the picking-only effect. Suitable routing or travel models support correct, fair comparisons for each combination, with picking and combined design effects correctly attributed.
Operational feasibility Capacity, access, labor, equipment, replenishment, and order completion are supported for the current warehouse; limitations are explicit. Capacity, access, resources, replenishment interfaces, handoffs, and order completion are supported for each retained design; limitations are explicit.
Decision justification The recommendation explains picking-only benefits, resource trade-offs, limitations, and implementation conditions, using sensitivity results where relevant. The recommendation explains combined design benefits, resource trade-offs, limitations, and implementation conditions, using sensitivity results where relevant.

WH-AS5 - Intervention Trade-Off Analysis (10 points)

Table 1.7: WH-AS5 rubric.
Criterion (2 points each) Evidence expected for full credit
Fair comparison Product-assignment, layout, and picking interventions are compared using consistent baselines, demand, units, and constraints.
Performance trade-offs Effects on cost, throughput, space, service, workload, and risk are quantified where the evidence permits.
System interactions Complementarities, conflicts, and shifted burdens across the three interventions are identified.
Uncertainty and robustness Material assumptions, sensitivities, data limitations, and implementation risks are tested or bounded.
Management synthesis The report provides a concise, prioritized course of action with conditions, sequencing, and monitoring indicators.

Final-grade computation

The five final-report-part rubrics collectively contribute 50% to the final grade, and the exam contributes the other 50%. Each rubric contributes a maximum of 10 raw points, with partial credit available. The teaching team may deduct up to 5 raw coursework points for report and code quality using the quality rubric. The individual oral defence verifies ownership and understanding but does not add points beyond the 50-point coursework total.

Let:

  • \(T\) denote the sum of the five report-part rubric scores (maximum 50), after the applicable individual coursework conditions;
  • \(D\) denote the report and code quality deduction, with \(0 \leq D \leq 5\);
  • \(a=\max(0,T-D)\) denote the coursework score after that deduction (maximum 50, no cutoff); and
  • \(e\) denote the exam raw score (maximum 50, cutting score 30).
NoteReason for the 60% cutoff

With 4 options per question, random guessing has an expected score of 25%. The 60% cutoff sets the passing threshold at 30 of 50 points.

Both components are converted to grades \(GA,GE\in[1,10]\).

Report and code quality deductions

The report and code quality rubric defines the deductions and their evidence requirements. Each underlying defect is assessed once, and the teaching team verifies deductions against the package being assessed.

Individual coursework conditions

The formative WH-AS1 draft is not scored directly. It must, however, be completed before the teaching team grades the WH-AS1 part of WH-FINAL. Let \(c_1=1\) if the team submitted a complete WH-AS1 draft addressing every required activity profile and KPI by the deadline, and \(c_1=0\) otherwise. For student \(i\):

\[ a_{1,i}= \begin{cases} a_{1,\mathrm{team}}, & \text{if }c_1=1\text{ and student }i\text{ completed both assigned peer reviews by the deadline},\\[4pt] 0, & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} \]

The WH-AS1 completion condition applies to the full team. The peer-review condition applies individually; one student’s non-completion does not affect the other team members.

The oral defence verifies whether each student can explain, interpret, locate, and reproduce the evidence submitted by the team. If a student cannot substantiate particular report or code evidence, the corresponding rubric criteria may be reduced or withheld for that student. Poor English, nervousness, or presentation style alone does not justify a reduction. No supplementary oral is offered within the first assessment opportunity; any subsequent assessment opportunity follows the approved assessment schedule and the applicable Education and Examination Regulations.

Final-report peer review

Each student must independently review one assigned final report and code package from another team. Completing this review is an individual condition for assessment of your final report and passing the course. Your completion status does not affect your teammates’ eligibility. Complete every published rubric criterion, explain each selected level, and record the reproducibility checks and their outcomes. The peer-review brief describes the required evidence and feedback quality. Peer ratings are advisory; the teaching team determines the official marks. Canvas holds the allocation, deadline, and completion instructions.

Coursework-grade mapping

The coursework score \(a\) is mapped to a grade \(GA\) as:

\[ \begin{aligned} GA &= 1 + a \times \frac{9}{50} \end{aligned} \]

Exam-grade mapping

The exam score (0–50) is mapped to a grade \(GE\) as:

\[ GE= \begin{cases} 1 + e \cdot \dfrac{4.5}{30}, & 0 \le e < 30,\\[6pt] 5.5 + (e-30)\cdot \dfrac{4.5}{20}, & 30 \le e \le 50. \end{cases} \]

Figure 1.1 illustrates the exam grade mapping. The breakpoint at 30 out of 50 points corresponds to the passing grade of 5.5.

Figure 1.1: Exam-grade mapping from 0 to 50 points. The grade rises linearly from 1.0 at zero points to 5.5 at 30 points, then rises more steeply to 10.0 at 50 points. Dashed lines identify the passing threshold at 30 points and grade 5.5.

Final-grade computation

You pass the course only if:

  1. You complete your assigned final-report peer review;
  2. The exam score \(e \ge 30\) (i.e., \(GE \ge 5.5\)), and
  3. The final grade \(G_{\text{final}} = \tfrac12 GA + \tfrac12 GE \ge 5.5\).

A student can pass with an exam grade of \(GE = 10\) and an assignments grade of \(GA = 1\), because \(\tfrac12(10) + \tfrac12(1) = 5.5\).

Grade rounding

The final-grade calculation uses the full-precision values of \(GE\) and \(GA\). The University of Twente rounding rules in Table 1.8 determine the value entered in Osiris.

Table 1.8: Rounding maps the full-precision grade to the value entered in Osiris. n is the integer part of the grade.
Condition Output
If n ≠ 5:
Grade ≥ n.00 and < n.25 n.0
Grade ≥ n.25 and < n.75 n.5
Grade ≥ n.75 and < (n + 1).00 (n + 1).0
If n = 5:
Grade ≥ 5.00 and < 5.50 5.0
Grade ≥ 5.50 and < 6.00 6.0

WH-AS1-PR - Peer Feedback

Peer review helps students learn from alternative approaches and common pitfalls. The rubric guides the review and communicates the standards for a strong solution.

Peer review is required for WH-AS1 - Diagnosis and Activity Profiling. The reviews are formative and do not create a separate quality score. Completing the WH-AS1 draft is the team’s eligibility condition for that final-report part to be graded; completing both assigned reviews is each student’s individual eligibility condition for receiving the resulting team score.

Process

  1. The instructor releases the assignment and its directions.
  2. Students ask questions during tutorials and after lectures.
  3. Teams submit the WH-AS1 draft following the instructions and deadline in Canvas.
  4. Canvas assigns two anonymous reviews per student.
  5. Each student completes both reviews by the deadline in Canvas.
  6. Teams use the feedback to revise the WH-AS1 evidence for the final report.
  7. The teaching team assesses the revised work with the WH-AS1 rubric as part of the final report.

Guardrails

  • A completed review addresses every applicable rubric row and provides substantive written feedback. Scores without meaningful comments do not count as a completed review.
  • A complete WH-AS1 draft addresses every required activity profile and KPI. If the team does not complete the draft, the WH-AS1 part of WH-FINAL is not graded and every team member receives 0 points for that part.
  • A student who completes both reviews receives the team’s WH-AS1 score determined from the revised final-report evidence.
  • A student who does not complete both reviews receives 0 points for WH-AS1. This condition is applied individually and does not penalize the other team members.
  • If a submission receives insufficient feedback, the instructor assigns additional reviewers or provides an instructor review.
  • Peer-review comments are advice, not official marks.
  • The instructor may audit reviews for fairness.
  • Questions about feedback should refer to specific rubric rows.

WH-FINAL-PR - Final report peer review

Each student independently reviews one final report from another team. The review deadline and instructions are in Canvas. Use the report rubric and give specific written feedback on strengths, limitations, and possible improvements. The review also checks whether the report’s evidence can be reproduced from the submitted code and original inputs. Record which checks succeeded, which required a documented correction, which failed, and which could not be checked. Canvas gives the reproducibility checklist and instructions for recording the evidence. Peer feedback is advisory; the teaching team determines the official marks. The teaching team verifies any report and code quality deduction against the assessed package.

Check Canvas for your assigned report. If no review is available after the report deadline, contact the instructor promptly.

Materials

The course uses selected papers, textbook chapters, and public lecture materials.

The course modules link to the lecture materials. Canvas provides all required materials, so you do not need to purchase these books.

The following books provide additional reading:

  • John J. Bartholdi, & Steven T. Hackman. (2019). Warehouse & Distribution Science. (http://www.warehouse-science.com/).
  • Richards, G. (2021). Warehouse management: The definitive guide to improving efficiency and minimizing costs in the modern warehouse (Fourth edition). Kogan Page.
  • Heragu, S. S. (2022). Facilities design (Fifth edition). CRC Press.
  • Tompkins, J. A. (2010). Facilities planning (4th ed). J. Wiley.
  • Ross, D. F. (2015). Distribution Planning and Control: Managing in the Era of Supply Chain Management. Springer US.
  • Zijm, H., Klumpp, M., Regattieri, A., & Heragu, S. (Eds.). (2019). Operations, Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Springer International Publishing.
  • Coyle, J. J., Langley, C. J., Novack, R. A., & Gibson, B. J. (2020). Supply chain management: A logistics perspective (11th edition). Cengage.
  • Manzini, R. (Ed.). (2012). Warehousing in the Global Supply Chain. Springer London.
  • Frazelle, E. (2016). World-class warehousing and material handling (Second Edition). McGraw-Hill Education.

Academic integrity

Follow the University of Twente codes of conduct throughout the course.

Submit work that follows the assignment’s collaboration and tool-use rules. Cite every external idea, quotation, dataset, and source. Presenting another person’s work as your own is plagiarism and is handled under University procedures.

Policy on generative AI

Generative AI may be used as writing support to:

  • develop an initial outline;
  • overcome writer’s block;
  • improve the clarity, tone, and language of your own draft; and
  • ask for explanations while studying.

Your submitted work must contain your own quantitative analysis and interpretation. You remain responsible for every claim, calculation, source, and recommendation. Never upload confidential company, student, or assessment information to an external AI service. Assignment-specific instructions in Canvas take precedence over this guidance.

Communication

Use the following communication channels:

  • Canvas: Announcements, grades, and discussions (content, questions).
    • Canvas Discussions:
      • Ask questions, share resources, discuss topics.
      • Answers by fellow students, TAs, and lecturer.
  • Email: Private matters.
  • Office hours: Before or after class, or by appointment.
  • Course feedback: Share it early enough for the teaching team to respond during the course.

Students should expect a response to their communications within two business days.

  1. ECTS: European Credit Transfer System. One ECTS is equal to 28 hours of study.↩︎