Even though this would provide 100% storage capacity, it would present enormous access and stock control problems and more than likely cause extensive product damage.
There would be no opportunity to rotate goods on a first-in/first-out basis and large numbers of staff would be needed to handle the goods each time you needed to access a product buried deep in the centre.
While this system offers the lowest possible capital cost as far as space and equipment is concerned, it would have very high operating costs from damage and labour costs.
At the other extreme, goods could simply be placed one-high on the floor in an orderly manner that allows for wide aisles.
Access to each product would be direct, damage from crushing and congested handling would be eliminated and a system of coding would simplify stock rotation.
This system would reduce labour operating costs enormously, but would use such a small percentage of the space that the space cost would be extraordinarily high.
Apart from the very small minority of goods which, for various reasons, could be stored and handled by either method, the reality is that the vast majority of storage solutions represent a compromise between the efficient use of space and access to the goods.
Choosing the most cost-effective and efficient system must take into account:
- the number of products
- the volume of each product
- the movement rate
- the physical size and weight of the products to be stored
- expected growth; and
- a host of other matters including the type of materials handling equipment to be used.
|