Innovation Peer

Automation Project Studio · Case Study

Case Study Overview

WIP movement between warehouse and production cells

Example outputAMRs / AGVs & Internal Material MovementEnough for Initial AssessmentPromising, Needs Validation

Ontario Components · Ontario Components — Kitchener, ON (Plant 1)

This sample case study uses fictional company and process data to show the type of documentation Innovation Peer can help prepare.

No supplier contact happens without your approval. Outputs are early-stage project scope — not final engineering design, quote, safety certification, or statement of work.

This is an early-stage project scope intended to support internal review and supplier feasibility discussions. It is not a final engineering design, safety certification, quote, or statement of work.

Company and industry context

Ontario Components — Industrial components manufacturing

Forklifts and carts moving WIP between warehouse and production cells.

Current process

Forklifts and manual carts move totes of WIP between raw material storage, three production cells, and finished goods staging with dispatch handled by radio.

Problem / bottleneck

Congestion, unpredictable wait times for WIP delivery, and forklift traffic near pedestrian aisles.

Related Technology Pathway

AMRs / AGVs & Internal Material Movement

Open Technology Pathway

Why the pathway fits

Repeatable routes between defined pick and drop points with tote loads suit AMR/AGV fleets with traffic rules and charging strategy.

What data the buyer needed

  • • Load weights and tote dimensions
  • • Route map and peak trip counts
  • • Wi-Fi coverage and traffic separation plan

Preliminary economics snapshot

Illustrative snapshot: ~$95K annual internal logistics labor allocation, 18 min average WIP wait target cut to 8 min; AMR pilots often $120K–$450K CAD depending on fleet size (not a quote).

Main risks

  • • Wi-Fi dead zones interrupt fleet coordination
  • • Forklift and AMR traffic conflicts
  • • Handoff points with manual cells undefined

Required delivery team

  • • AMR/AGV vendor
  • • Systems integrator
  • • WMS/MES liaison

Recommended next step

Capture aisle map and peak move log in Project Intake, then draft route validation and site readiness checklist.

Document packages generated

  • • Project Assessment
  • • Preliminary economics snapshot
  • • Required Delivery Team
  • • Supplier-Ready Project Scope
  • • Site readiness checklist
Start with a similar challenge

Documentation stack

Industrial automation buying-gate documents generated from your Automation Project record. Use Export Documents in the page header for PDF, Excel, and presentation exports.

Internal Decision Package

Gate 1 — readiness, economics, and capital justification for internal sponsors.

Active package6 docs · Ready for Internal Use

Summarize readiness, preliminary economics, and capital justification for internal sponsors.

Supports: Whether to proceed with feasibility and project definition.

Project Definition Package

Gate 2 — charter, risks, validation, and site readiness for project definition.

Active package5 docs · Ready for Internal Use

Define project scope, risks, validation needs, and site readiness before supplier engagement.

Supports: Whether the project is defined enough to engage suppliers or integrators.

Supplier Preparation Package

Gate 3 — pre-procurement URS/SOW and supplier engagement support (draft sections).

Draft / partial4 docs · Ready for Internal Use

Prepare draft URS/SOW, technical requirements, and supplier evaluation criteria for procurement.

Supports: Whether supplier conversations can start with structured scope and criteria.

Supplier sharing gated — Complete intake gaps and readiness review before supplier-facing exports.

Commercial Readiness Package

Commercial and legal-readiness planning templates before supplier conversations — not legal advice or final contracts.

Draft / partial7 docs · Mixed (Drafting, Ready for Internal Use)

Plan commercial terms, consent, and clarification questions before supplier proposals and contracts.

Supports: Whether the team is ready for commercial and contractual supplier discussions.

Supplier sharing gated — Complete intake gaps and readiness review before supplier-facing exports.

Internal Decision Package

Management Summary

Ready for Internal UseGenerated 3/15/2026, 2:30:00 PM

Intended audience: Plant Manager · Operations Director

Ontario Components · AMRs / AGVs & Internal Material Movement — Ontario Components

Readiness scorecard

How ready is this project for internal and project review?

Readiness: Enough for Initial Assessment

Fit: Promising, Needs Validation

Next step: Prepare First

Core intake completeness

Core intake completeness reflects structured intake capture only. It does not mean final validation, supplier readiness, engineering sign-off, or safety approval.

100% captured

Supplier-readiness completeness

Site, evidence, and pathway readiness for supplier conversations — not supplier approval.

80% supplier-readiness signals

Risk matrix

Level, reason, and validation step for each area

Process risk: Low

Reason: Process context is documented enough for initial assessment.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Technology risk: Low

Reason: Solution technology aligns with stated process needs.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Commercial risk: Low

Reason: Labor and cost inputs support preliminary economics.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Implementation risk: Low

Reason: Site and staffing context supports implementation planning.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Safety / compliance risk: Low

Reason: No immediate safety/compliance flags from intake data.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.

Owner: TBD — assign during project review

Status: Monitor

Change management risk: Medium

Reason: Stakeholder alignment, training, and shift adoption affect automation benefits realization.

Mitigation / validation: Confirm operations, maintenance, and quality sign-off paths; plan communication and training before install.

Owner: Jess Moore — Production Planner

Status: Open — needs review

Required delivery team

Who needs to be involved to deliver this project?

RoleLead / supportCategorySideWhy it matters
Systems integratorLeadIntegrationSupplier-sideDesigns and delivers the automation scope for this pathway.
Customer-side operations ownerBuyer-side contactCustomerBuyer-sideJess Moore — Production Planner
Maintenance contactBuyer-side contactMaintenanceBuyer-sideAna Ruiz — Controls Engineer

Project overview

WIP movement between warehouse and production cells at Ontario Components · Ontario Components — Kitchener, ON (Plant 1). Automation pathway: AMRs / AGVs & Internal Material Movement. Readiness: Enough for Initial Assessment. Fit: Promising, Needs Validation.

Current problem

Average 18-minute WIP wait times. Forklift traffic near pedestrian aisles. Unpredictable kitting delays stall cell starts on second shift.

Desired outcome

AMR or AGV loops for predictable tote delivery between warehouse and cells with traffic rules and reduced forklift congestion.

Preliminary economics

Current labor baseline ~$384,000 CAD/year; Estimated savings $102,850–$139,150 CAD/year; Project cost $100,000–$500,000 CAD; Estimated payback range: 9–58 months; Base-case payback 10–50 months.

Main risks

Top risks to validate before capital or supplier commitments.

Risk areaLevelReasonValidation stepOwnerStatus
ProcessLowProcess context is documented enough for initial assessment.Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.TBD — assign during project reviewMonitor
TechnologyLowSolution technology aligns with stated process needs.Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.TBD — assign during project reviewMonitor
CommercialLowLabor and cost inputs support preliminary economics.Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.TBD — assign during project reviewMonitor
ImplementationLowSite and staffing context supports implementation planning.Confirm during feasibility review and document in the project charter.TBD — assign during project reviewMonitor

Required delivery team summary

Lead and supporting roles expected during delivery.

RoleTypeRationale
Systems integratorLeadDesigns and delivers the automation scope for this pathway.

Recommended next step

Capture route map, traffic rules, Wi-Fi coverage, and handoff points before fleet sizing discussions.

Decision needed

Confirm what additional site data and evidence to collect before the next step.

Missing Information & Assumptions to Confirm

Confirm provided inputs, assumptions, and missing items before treating economics as decision-grade.

Provided inputs

  • Operators involved: 3
  • Hours per shift: 8
  • Shifts per day: 2
  • Working days per year: 250
  • Loaded hourly labor cost: $32/hr CAD

Assumptions used for preliminary calculation

  • Calculated baseline (~$384,000 CAD/yr) differs from stated annual labor ($95,000 CAD) — reconcile inputs

Missing information / needs confirmation

  • No major information gaps flagged at this completeness level.
▸ Technical detail / generated assessment panels

Automation Project Overview

Fictional intake data for this sample case study. Assessment panels use the same deterministic logic as live Automation Projects.

Company
Ontario Components
Industry
Industrial components manufacturing
Site / facility
Ontario Components — Kitchener, ON (Plant 1)
Process name
WIP movement between warehouse and production cells
Selected Automation Solution
AMRs / AGVs & Internal Material Movement
Current process
Forklifts and manual carts move totes of WIP between raw material storage, three production cells, and finished goods staging with radio dispatch.
Desired outcome
AMR or AGV loops for predictable tote delivery between warehouse and cells with traffic rules and reduced forklift congestion.
Main pain points
Average 18-minute WIP wait times. Forklift traffic near pedestrian aisles. Unpredictable kitting delays stall cell starts on second shift.
Operators involved
3
Shifts per day
2
Hours per shift
8
Working days per year
250
Loaded hourly labor cost
$32 CAD
Cycle time / throughput
~120 tote moves per day across three cells
Product / part details
Standard totes up to 25 kg, 4 tote sizes, non-hazardous WIP.
Evidence notes
Example only: aisle map PDF, peak move log, Wi-Fi heatmap note (demo placeholder).
Project owner
Kevin O'Neill — Operations Director
Technical contact
Ana Ruiz — Controls Engineer
Operations contact
Jess Moore — Production Planner
Quality contact
Kevin O'Neill — Operations Director

Project Assessment

Current process summary
Forklifts and manual carts move totes of WIP between raw material storage, three production cells, and finished goods staging with radio dispatch. Primary bottleneck: Internal WIP transport and kitting delays Pain points: Average 18-minute WIP wait times. Forklift traffic near pedestrian aisles. Unpredictable kitting delays stall cell starts on second shift.
Selected Automation Solution
AMRs / AGVs & Internal Material Movement
Project Readiness
Enough for Initial Assessment
Project Fit
Promising, Needs Validation
Core intake completeness
100%

Project Readiness and Data Completeness

Enough for Initial Assessment — 100% of core intake fields are populated for this assessment level.

Project Fit & Risk Scoring

Risk areaLevelNotes
ProcessMediumProcess context is documented enough for initial assessment.
TechnologyMediumSolution technology aligns with stated process needs.
CommercialLowLabor and cost inputs support preliminary economics.
ImplementationMediumSite and staffing context supports implementation planning.
Safety / complianceNeeds ReviewPedestrian and forklift separation plan needs explicit review.

Core intake fields are complete for this assessment level.

Recommended next step

Capture route map, traffic rules, Wi-Fi coverage, and handoff points before fleet sizing discussions.

Preliminary Project Economics

Current annual labor baseline
$384,000 CAD
Estimated annual savings range
$102,850–$139,150 CAD
Estimated project cost range
$100,000–$500,000 CAD
Estimated payback range
9–58 months

Business case inputs

  • Current labour hours3 operators · 2 shifts/day · 8 hours/shift · 250 days/year
  • Fully loaded labour cost32
  • Shift pattern2 shifts/day · 8 hours/shift · 250 days/year
  • Throughput requirements~120 tote moves per day across three cells
  • Scrap / rework impact8000
  • Downtime impact42000
  • Capex estimate range$100,000–$500,000 CAD
  • Opex estimate rangeNeeds data
  • Implementation disruptionSite and staffing context supports implementation planning.
  • Expected savings range$102,850–$139,150 CAD
  • Payback range9–58 months (indicative)

Calculation assumptions

  • Calculated baseline (~$384,000 CAD/yr) differs from stated annual labor ($95,000 CAD) — reconcile inputs

All economics are indicative ranges — not supplier quotes or capital approval.

Scenario Analysis

Conservative Case

Project cost
$110,000–$550,000 CAD
Annual savings
$67,600 CAD
Payback
20–98 months

Base Case

Project cost
$100,000–$500,000 CAD
Annual savings
$121,000 CAD
Payback
10–50 months

Upside Case

Project cost
$90,000–$450,000 CAD
Annual savings
$193,600 CAD
Payback
6–28 months

Required Delivery Team

Roles typically involved in scoping, validating, and delivering this Automation Project. Final team composition depends on site walkthrough and supplier feasibility review.

RoleLead / supportCategoryWhy it matters
Systems integratorLeadIntegrationDesigns and delivers the automation scope for this pathway.

Validation Checklist

  • Baseline process data

    Required for early project scoping and supplier-neutral planning.

Site Readiness Checklist

  • Site layout and utilities

    Confirm during site walkthrough and Project Intake.

Estimated Project Timeline

PhaseMilestoneDurationDescription
Phase 1Discovery and scoping4–8 weeksIntake, site review, and preliminary project definition.

Management Summary

Project
WIP movement between warehouse and production cells
Company / site
Ontario Components · Ontario Components — Kitchener, ON (Plant 1)
Automation Solution
AMRs / AGVs & Internal Material Movement
Project Readiness
Enough for Initial Assessment
Project Fit
Promising, Needs Validation
Recommended pathway
Prepare First
Current problem
Average 18-minute WIP wait times. Forklift traffic near pedestrian aisles. Unpredictable kitting delays stall cell starts on second shift.
Desired outcome
AMR or AGV loops for predictable tote delivery between warehouse and cells with traffic rules and reduced forklift congestion.
Preliminary economics
Current labor baseline ~$384,000 CAD/year; Estimated savings $102,850–$139,150 CAD/year; Project cost $100,000–$500,000 CAD; Estimated payback range: 9–58 months; Base-case payback 10–50 months.
Main risks
Scope definition
Decision needed
Confirm what additional site data and evidence to collect before the next step.

Supplier-Ready Project Scope

This is an early-stage project scope intended to support internal review and supplier feasibility discussions. It is not a final engineering design, safety certification, quote, or statement of work.

Current process
Forklifts and manual carts move totes of WIP between raw material storage, three production cells, and finished goods staging with radio dispatch.
Desired outcome
AMR or AGV loops for predictable tote delivery between warehouse and cells with traffic rules and reduced forklift congestion.
Production context
Operators: 3 · Shifts/day: 2 · Throughput: ~120 tote moves per day across three cells · Product/part: Standard totes up to 25 kg, 4 tote sizes, non-hazardous WIP.
Evidence notes
Example only: aisle map PDF, peak move log, Wi-Fi heatmap note (demo placeholder).
Required Delivery Team
Systems integrator
Preliminary economics summary
Current labor baseline ~$384,000 CAD/year; Estimated savings $102,850–$139,150 CAD/year; Project cost $100,000–$500,000 CAD; Estimated payback range: 9–58 months; Base-case payback 10–50 months.

Risks to validate

  • Scope definition: Early assumptions about cycle time, part mix, or site constraints may change after data review.
Preliminary assessment outputs are for planning and internal review only. They do not replace detailed engineering design, hazard analysis, safety certification, supplier quotes, or a formal statement of work.

Start Your Own Project Intake

Create your own Automation Project with your process data. Your project stays private until you choose to request a Project Review — no supplier contact without your approval.

Start Your Own Project IntakeMore sample case studies