Existing automation review checklist
A structured review for warehouse and logistics teams who already have automation deployed and want to assess whether it is performing as intended.
10 min read · Vendor-agnostic
When to conduct an automation review
Most automation reviews are triggered by visible underperformance: throughput below target, high exception rates, or labour savings that did not materialise. But the most effective reviews are scheduled proactively, before performance gaps become operational crises.
- 12 months after initial go-live (post-stabilisation review)
- When throughput is consistently more than 10 percent below business case target
- When system exception rates have increased year-on-year
- Before a maintenance or software contract renewal
- Before a capacity expansion decision
- When operational volumes have changed significantly since deployment
- When the original project team has moved on and institutional knowledge has been lost
Annual review as standard practice
Operations with mature automation programmes typically conduct an annual performance review covering system uptime, throughput against target, exception trends, maintenance cost, and software currency. This review should be internal-led, not vendor-led.
Review checklist by category
The following categories cover the most common areas of automation underperformance. Each should be assessed independently and rated against the original business case assumptions.
System performance
Measure actual throughput against business case target. Record system uptime percentage. Calculate robot or equipment utilisation rate. Document peak performance versus average performance gap. Identify recurring bottlenecks by time of day or shift.
Integration and data
Review WMS-to-system integration stability: frequency and type of integration errors. Assess inventory data accuracy in the automated zone. Review SKU master data completeness and currency. Check whether order profile has changed materially since commissioning.
Operational processes
Assess whether staff follow documented exception handling procedures. Review whether inbound quality and labelling standards are being maintained. Check whether manual interventions have increased over time. Identify process deviations that the system was not designed for.
Maintenance and support
Review planned maintenance compliance rate. Assess mean time to repair (MTTR) for common failure types. Review vendor support response times against SLA. Identify recurring component failures and assess whether proactive replacement programmes are in place.
Financial performance
Compare actual labour cost saving against business case projection. Calculate actual cost per unit processed. Review total maintenance and support cost versus budget. Identify whether any costs were underestimated at business case stage.
Future fit
Assess whether current system capacity is sufficient for projected volume growth. Review software version currency and upgrade roadmap. Identify whether operational changes (new SKUs, new order types, new channels) are creating system stress. Evaluate whether the vendor is investing in the platform.
Common root causes by symptom
Most automation underperformance traces to one of three root cause categories. Identifying the correct root cause determines whether the solution is operational, technical, or commercial.
Throughput below business case target
Most common causes: order profile has changed since commissioning (more lines per order, different SKU mix); integration latency between WMS and automation system creating queue stalls; slotting has not been updated to reflect current velocity profiles; system was sized based on average load rather than peak.
High exception rate
Most common causes: inventory data inaccuracy causing system to find unexpected stock situations; SKU dimensions or weights in master data do not match physical product; inbound labelling quality is inconsistent, causing scan failures; staff not following exception handling procedures, creating compounding errors.
Labour saving below projection
Most common causes: manual exception handling volume is higher than anticipated, consuming labour that was supposed to be freed; system downtime requiring manual backup operations; scope creep in the automated zone not matching original design assumptions; labour redeployment not executed after automation go-live.
Review outputs
A structured automation review should produce three outputs that can be presented to operations management and, where relevant, finance.
- Performance gap summary: actual versus business case across throughput, uptime, labour saving, and cost. Quantified where possible.
- Root cause analysis: identified root causes for each material gap, with evidence rather than assumptions.
- Improvement action plan: prioritised actions with owners, timelines, and expected impact. Distinguished between internal actions and vendor-dependent actions.
When to involve an independent reviewer
Internal reviews are appropriate for routine performance monitoring. An independent reviewer adds value when the performance gap is material, the vendor relationship is under strain, or the organisation lacks the internal expertise to diagnose root causes objectively.
- Performance gap exceeds 20 percent of business case projection for more than two quarters
- The vendor attributes performance gaps to customer-side issues and the internal team lacks the data to challenge this
- A contract renewal or system expansion decision is imminent and an independent view is needed
- The review is being used to support a commercial dispute or warranty claim
Review your existing automation
Use the workspace to run a structured automation health assessment and identify where your system can be improved.
Start Free Assessment