Case Study: Eliminating Detention Fees & Temp Labor with Faster Unloading
Client Snapshot
A North American rug distributor operated a high-volume warehouse and faced significant costs related to inbound container handling. The company received long, heavy, plastic-wrapped rugs that were difficult to manage using standard equipment. There were no available robotic or automated systems on the market designed to handle this specific product type.
The Challenge
The company incurred thousands of dollars each week in detention charges. Containers remained at the dock too long due to slow unload times. The unloading process relied on temporary labor, with eight to ten workers scheduled each day, six days per week. This staffing model involved frequent turnover and occasional injuries. Despite these resources, container backlogs continued, and operational costs remained high.
The Approach
An extensive assessment of the receiving process was conducted to identify material handling options that could support container unloading without requiring structural changes to the dock. Multiple alternatives were evaluated, including analysis of installation and maintenance costs. A drivable conveyor system was identified as a suitable solution based on its ability to improve unload speed and reduce physical strain. A short term contract for testing of the system was negotiated, and the unit was installed.
Demonstration and on-site testing confirmed that the system could increase efficiency and improve safety. A financial model projected full payback within two years. A purchase agreement was negotiated to acquire the demonstration unit at a reduced price with an extended warranty, lowering both initial and long-term costs.
The Outcome
The conveyor system was deployed without any modifications to the building or dock; only an electrical cable festoon system was required, and was negotiated into the purchase price. Temporary labor for receiving operations was no longer required. Container unload time improved by a factor of six. Detention charges were eliminated. No injuries were reported in the receiving area following implementation.
Lesson Learned
Creative negotiations to get an on-site test played a large role in making this an affordable option. However equally as important was the rejection of the standard options in the search for something better. Rather than make do with a traditional option that had limited range and high installation costs that required modifying the building, the time spent to find and evaluate the right product paid off.