One in four supply chain leaders regret their warehouse automation decisions, primarily due to underestimated lifetime costs, unclear vendor accountability, and implementing automation before operations were ready. Once implemented, 94% find switching providers prohibitively expensive, locking them into systems for 10-15 years.
- 25% regret rate: One in four supply chain leaders wish they had chosen differently, with larger companies ($1B+ revenue) experiencing higher regret (21% vs. 13%)
- Cost overruns are common: 65% report total cost of ownership exceeded expectations, with 43% of underperforming systems running 26-100% above budget
- Vendor accountability matters: 60% have multi-vendor systems, and one in seven see no benefits because no single vendor takes responsibility for performance
- Low-cost providers problematic: Budget providers are 5x more likely to be the wrong choice, with 59% hiding costs and 22% failing to deliver promised solutions
- Preparation is critical: Only 1% of early adopters with dedicated automation teams regretted their choice, compared to 11% of fast followers
One in four supply chain leaders wish they had gone a different way with regards to implementing warehouse automation, according to a recent Exotec study.
However, once they made the decision, 94% said switching providers would be prohibitively expensive, leaving most buyers with the system they chose for the next 10-15 years.
“What we heard from supply chain leaders is that regret is rarely about the technology itself,” says Romain Moulin, CEO and co-founder of Exotec. "It starts when a system built by several vendors stops working as one, and the customer is left figuring out who is responsible for the fix. The operations that get the most from their automation are the ones where a single partner owns the whole system performance, from design through the years it runs.”
Key takeaways:
· Companies with over $1 billion in revenue were more likely to say their most significant automation investment underperformed compared to those with less than $1 billion in revenue (21% vs. 13%). Across the survey, regret traced back to three decisions made before implementation: underestimating lifetime ownership cost, leaving accountability for issue resolution unclear, and implementing automation before the operation was ready.
· 65% of leaders say total cost of ownership came in higher than expected. 70% say undisclosed costs have raised their annual maintenance spend. Among respondents whose systems underperformed, 43% said total costs ran 26-100% above expectations.
· 60% of respondents had a system designed by more than one company, and one in seven say they haven't seen the benefits of automation because no vendor takes full responsibility for performance. Buyers who worked directly with the equipment manufacturer rated the speed of root-cause identification higher than other buyers (75% vs. 69%).
· More than one-quarter (27%) say their operation wasn't ready when they invested. Early adopters with dedicated automation teams and leadership oversight rarely regretted their choice: 1% say they picked the wrong vendor, compared with 11% of fast followers.
· Buyers who chose low-cost providers report regret most often. They were nearly five times as likely to say they picked the wrong vendor (24% vs. 5% of other buyers), and only 52% rated root-cause identification as fast, compared with 74% of other buyers. Across all respondents, 59% say low-cost providers hide costs and common complications upfront, and 22% say their vendor didn't deliver what it promised during the sales process.
● 91% of supply chain leaders say automation is now a basic requirement, and 86% of those who have automated say they head into peak season more confident than before.
● 99% of organizations use AI in some form, but 24% are still in the pilot phase.
● Most respondents (77%) trust purpose-built fulfillment automation to deliver better ROI than humanoids in the next five years, though 48% say they're optimistic about implementing humanoids.
