WH-AS3 - Warehouse Layout Improvement
Aims
Develop and evaluate a warehouse layout proposal that accounts for storage requirements, replenishment, and material handling. Use mathematical modeling to support your recommendation to warehouse management.
Learning objectives
After completing this assignment, you will be able to:
- translate storage and handling requirements into layout decisions;
- choose and apply a quantitative model suited to a warehouse design problem;
- compare the current arrangement with a feasible proposal; and
- explain the benefits, trade-offs, and limitations of the proposal.
Study case
Use the same SPR warehouse and data as in WH-AS1 and WH-AS2. Reuse your data pipeline, profiles, coordinates, and storage requirements.
Select a layout problem that matters for your group’s recommendation. You might reconsider the space assigned to active picking and reserve storage, rearrange a group of storage blocks, or change access and replenishment interfaces. Explain the problem using evidence from your earlier analysis, then define an area or product population that you can study with the available data.
Account for the stock and activities that share the selected space. Use the workload to establish handling and throughput requirements, and explain which activities need to be close to each other. Express adjacency priorities with a stated rating or weight where they enter your model.
Layout proposal and analysis
The proposed change
Describe the current arrangement and explain what you propose to change. Show both layouts at comparable scales, with the storage areas and main handling interfaces labeled. Indicate which boundaries, equipment, and interfaces remain fixed. An annotated plan of a selected area is sufficient if it makes the change and its operational consequences clear.
Determine the storage capacity and space needed for the proposal using your WH-AS2 results. Explain how quantities and storage locations translate into floor area, including storage levels and access space. If reserve stock is stored above active picking, count the shared floor footprint once and account for both uses of the capacity.
Quantitative evaluation
Use at least one quantitative model to develop or evaluate the proposed change. Select the model according to the decision you want to support and the inputs you can justify. For example, a forward-reserve model can support a change in picking space, a replenishment model can assess the resulting handling work, and a block-layout model can support the placement of warehouse areas. A calculation model or an optimization model is acceptable.
Give a compact description of the model’s inputs, relationships, assumptions, and constraints. For an optimization model, also define the decision variables and objective. Explain how the model informs the proposed layout.
Compare the current arrangement and the proposal using the same product population, demand period, units, and evaluation assumptions. Report the effect on space or capacity and on a relevant operational measure, such as travel distance, replenishment work, or handling time. State how each measure is calculated and show the baseline, proposal, and change.
Feasibility and recommendation
Check whether the proposal provides sufficient capacity and access for the selected scope. Consider the interaction between reserve storage and active picking, including full-case picks and replenishment. Address staging, fixed interfaces, and equipment clearances where they affect the change. Identify any safety or operational conditions that management must verify before implementation.
Recommend whether management should adopt the proposal. Support the recommendation with your comparison and sensitivity analysis, and explain its main limitations and implementation consequences. Explain why you prefer it to one other credible layout option. A brief qualitative comparison is sufficient for that option.
Requirements
Management report
Include the proposal in the group’s shared management report of no more than 12 pages. The minimum WH-AS3 evidence is:
- The layout problem, selected scope, and current and proposed arrangements.
- A quantitative model and comparison, with capacity and feasibility checks and one sensitivity analysis.
- A management recommendation supported by the results and their limitations.
Select the figures and tables that support the decision. Keep complete calculations and supporting outputs in the code package. Use the caption and visualization standards from WH-AS1.
Supporting code
Extend your existing entry point to generate the WH-AS3 results from the original files in data/raw/. Save the inputs, assumptions, layout coordinates, comparison results, and figures. When you use a solver, retain its settings, status, and any available bound or gap. Claim optimality only when the solution method and result support it.
Use any suitable tools or programming language and follow the existing final project file requirements. Submit the complete LaTeX project and PDF with the supporting code. WH-AS3 has no separate upload or additional peer-review requirement.
Assessment criteria
The existing WH-AS3 rubric applies. The criteria in Table 23.1 assess the quality of your chosen analysis.
| Rubric criterion (2 points each) | Evidence of quality |
|---|---|
| Requirements and capacity | Space, storage, throughput, adjacency, and handling requirements quantified for the selected scope, with consistent units and capacity |
| Layout logic | A clear layout change connected to the diagnosed problem and earlier storage decisions |
| Quantitative evaluation | An appropriate model and a correct comparison under consistent assumptions |
| Operational feasibility | Access, replenishment, equipment, and other relevant constraints checked, with remaining uncertainties identified |
| Decision justification | A recommendation supported by the results and sensitivity analysis, with credible alternatives, limitations, and implementation implications considered |