By Eamonn Ryan
When automation discussions dominate industry headlines, it’s easy to focus on hardware – cranes racing down aisles, autonomous robots gliding across freezer floors, sophisticated pallet handling systems operating in the dark.
But a recent episode of an Apple podcast on the platform From The Cold Corner, hosted by Kelley Rodriguez, David Campbell and Jeremy Kynsen of Burns & McDonnell made a critical distinction: automation success is not primarily an engineering challenge. It is a change management challenge.
Technology may define the system. People determine whether it works.
The ‘IndyCar’ reality of advanced automation
Campbell offered a vivid analogy. Traditional warehouse operations are like daily drivers – reliable, familiar and maintainable by most teams. Automated systems, by contrast, resemble IndyCars. They are high-performance machines requiring specialised maintenance, precise co-ordination and a trained support crew.
This analogy captures a core truth often overlooked in capital planning: installing automation without preparing the organisation to operate and maintain it introduces significant risk.
Advanced automated systems demand:
- Skilled technical maintenance teams
- Robust troubleshooting processes
- Data literacy for system monitoring
- Clear escalation protocols
- Strong vendor partnerships
Without these capabilities, the most advanced system can become an operational bottleneck. Recognising this, many automation integrators now offer resident maintenance programmes to support facilities during early operational phases. But long-term success still requires internal readiness.
Don’t automate a broken process
One of the clearest warnings from the discussion was simple: automating an inefficient process does not make it efficient.
Before automation begins, operators must evaluate their workflows using lean principles. Are SKU profiles optimised? Are dock flows logical? Are order profiles stable? Are there unnecessary touches in the process?
Automation magnifies both strengths and weaknesses. A well-designed process becomes highly efficient. A flawed process becomes rigid and expensive.
Inside-out thinking applies not only to building design but to operational design as well.
The business horizon shift
Another critical risk factor lies in planning timelines. Conventional cold storage facilities are often designed with a 30-year operational horizon in mind. Automation-heavy facilities, because of higher upfront capital investment and faster technological evolution, typically operate on closer to a 15-year financial modelling window.
That difference changes everything. With automation, capital intensity shifts to the front end. Payback periods are closely scrutinised. Throughput assumptions must be realistic. Consumer behavior trends – fresh versus frozen demand, SKU proliferation, e-commerce growth – must be considered.
Overbuilding for a 30-year static vision can be just as risky as underbuilding for current demand.
Strategic flexibility becomes essential.
Designing for adaptability
Risk management in automated cold storage increasingly centres on flexibility.
Operators are building:
- Convertible freezer-to-cooler spaces
- Flexible temperature zones
- Structural provisions for future expansion
- Scalable power infrastructure
- Automation layouts that allow modular upgrades
Consumer demand is not static. Economic conditions shift purchasing behaviour. Retail strategies evolve. A facility that can adapt without massive reinvestment protects both capital and competitiveness.
As Kynsen noted, it’s critical not to box yourself into a corner with overly rigid design decisions.
Renovation vs new build: operational disruption as risk
Not every company builds greenfield facilities. Many seek to retrofit or expand existing assets. But renovation introduces its own category of risk: operational disruption.
Construction traffic, temporary shutdowns, limited staging space, and safety concerns can strain ongoing operations. In some cases, building an expansion and cutting into the existing facility at the very end minimises downtime. In others, retrofitting within existing constraints proves cost-effective.
The key is understanding whether the operation can withstand months of disruption. If not, even a technically sound retrofit may be strategically flawed.
Risk isn’t only financial – it’s operational continuity.
Stakeholder alignment: the hidden success factor
Automation projects often fail not because the technology underperforms, but because stakeholders are misaligned. Operations, finance, engineering, IT and executive leadership may all approach automation with different priorities:
- Operations seek reliability
- Finance seeks ROI clarity
- Engineering seeks technical feasibility
- IT seeks cybersecurity and data integrity
- Leadership seeks strategic advantage
Without structured stakeholder engagement early in planning, conflicting expectations can derail progress.
Successful projects create shared objectives before detailed design begins. What problem is truly being solved? Labour reduction? Throughput expansion? Safety improvement? Market competitiveness?
If the core objective isn’t clear, the automation strategy will drift.
Simulations reduce uncertainty
One powerful modern risk mitigation tool is advanced simulation modeling.
Rather than relying solely on spreadsheet calculations, operators can now test peak demand scenarios, SKU variability and maintenance interruptions in digital models before committing to construction.
This approach surfaces edge cases – the rare but disruptive scenarios that spreadsheets often ignore. By identifying these risks early, teams can create workflows or contingencies before go-live.
Simulation does not eliminate risk. It makes risk visible.