Picking technologies: When inaccuracy leads to lost customers
The true cost of a mispick is measured in service levels—and by a dwindling customer base when consumer and B2B buyers turn to sources that get orders right.
Victoria Kickham started her career as a newspaper reporter in the Boston area before moving into B2B journalism. She has covered manufacturing, distribution and supply chain issues for a variety of publications in the industrial and electronics sectors, and now writes about everything from forklift batteries to omnichannel business trends for DC Velocity.
Most organizations understand that mispicks can add up to big losses—in money, time, and labor—but the biggest bite comes from losing a customer due to service problems associated with slow deliveries, receipt of the wrong item, and the hassle of a return. In today's fast-shipping world, where two-day (or faster) delivery has become the norm thanks to the likes of Amazon.com and Zappos.com, companies serving both consumers and business-to-business customers must meet higher-than-ever expectation levels or suffer the wrath of a dissatisfied customer.
"Service is now the big issue," says Steve Mulaik, Atlanta-based director with global supply chain management consulting firm Crimson & Co. "[A mispick] can add two days to an order's processing time. This is huge in the cut-throat e-commerce world. This sort of thing ends up in complaints on Facebook and elsewhere that drive [customers] to sites that have better service."
The situation is putting pressure on distribution center leaders to improve accuracy in the picking process. The list of remedies is long and includes technology solutions, process changes, and new approaches to training DC workers. But before a DC can tackle any of that, managers and staff must understand what a mispick is, what it costs, and how to address the weak spots in their operation.
MISPICKS: WHAT THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE COSTING YOU
A mispick occurs when the wrong item or wrong quantity of an item is picked, when an item is omitted, or when a damaged or mislabeled item makes its way into an order. Mispicks occur primarily through human error; a worker picks the wrong item, pulls from the wrong location, picks the wrong quantity or unit of measure, puts an item into the wrong tote, or in some cases abandons the pick task along the way. Mispicks also can occur because of vendor errors or because a product has been misreceived.
Experts say it's tough to put an industry-standard price tag on the cost of a mispick because so many factors come into play, including the value of the product being picked and the costs associated with shipping, returning, and restocking the item—as well as the labor required to handle it all. Soft costs—including resulting inventory inaccuracies and customer dissatisfaction—further muddy the waters.
Despite those challenges, there are some industry statistics that highlight the severity of the problem: A 2012 study by research company Vanson Bourne estimates that DCs lose nearly $400,000 a year due to mispicks, and Crimson & Co. estimates the labor cost of a mispick in cart-picking operations at $3 to $7 per error.
"It's different for every organization," says Peter Gerbitz, system sales manager for Lightning Pick/Matthews Automation Solutions, a Wisconsin-based provider of light-directed and advanced order fulfillment systems. He adds that awareness of the problem is growing, although he says efforts to mitigate it lag. "About half [of organizations] have really drilled in and can put a dollar amount on the cost of a mispick. In the half that haven't done so, they have a general idea of the elements and realize the severity of the issue. And there are a number of them that don't understand the cost associated with it [at all] ... For some reason, they may shy away from the investment needed to correct the problem."
Those reasons often include the high cost of new technology solutions or upgrades, and the time and training involved in developing new picking processes or redesigning existing ones. Gerbitz and others say DC leaders should look past such hurdles to find affordable and creative ways to address the problem. They also point out that, for some firms, a hefty high-tech investment will not only alleviate the pain of mispicks but may also yield game-changing productivity improvements throughout the DC. In either case, improving the picking process can mean the difference between a satisfied and dissastisfied customer base.
"Customers have zero appetite for mispicks and inaccurate orders," says Doug Card, director, systems and special applications, Americas, for Kardex Remstar, a Westbrook, Maine-based manufacturer of automated storage and retrieval systems. "Almost everyone has multiple sources they can get something from, so if you ship someone the wrong product, if it's not a perfect experience, they will go somewhere else."
There are three primary ways to mitigate the risk of mispicks: technology, design, and training. Technology is often the first thing that comes to mind, with solutions that range from simple bar-code scanners and radio-frequency identification (RFID) systems to more advanced voice- and light-directed picking technologies. Such solutions rank high because they make an impact.
"The more you automate, the more accuracy you are typically going to see," says Gerbitz. "On the flip side, the more you [automate,] the higher the cost."
As an example of high-tech automation, he points to the light-directed order fulfillment solutions Lightning Pick provides. Pick-to-light technology, as it's commonly known, is an order fulfillment system that uses alphanumeric displays that light up to guide and expedite the manual picking process. Such solutions incorporate other technologies—including bar-code scanning and RFID tools—and are designed to integrate with a company's warehouse management system. But not all companies will benefit from such solutions.
"There are deltas on both ends, where [a company] may not have the order volumes to justify it, and we see that the [return on investment] won't be there. On the other hand, depending on the product, [a company's needs] may be beyond what we can provide," says Gerbitz. "But there is a very large group of customers in between that can benefit from this type of technology."
Outside of automation—and, often, in conjunction with it—experts urge DCs seeking to reduce mispicks to conduct a detailed review of their picking process to identify—and address—areas where errors are most likely to occur and evaluate how well they train and motivate their picking staff to get orders right. These are areas where DCs can get creative—but they must be persistent, Mulaik advises.
"Tuning or redesigning a picking process to produce 0.1-percent errors without outside help can take multiple quarters, if not years, and should start with a thorough review of the kinds of picking mistakes that occur most commonly in the organization," he says, adding that managers should then address those issues one by one.
"It's more about how we deal with [errors] so that they don't happen," he says. "Sometimes, I think people just don't get creative enough."
As an example, he points to a bar-code scanning system that gives the same auditory signal for a pick as it does for a mispick. Simply programming your system to use a different sound for each will help reduce some of the mispicks.
"You need to think through the design process—within your system's capability," he says, adding that developing training programs and creating awareness about how mispicks happen is also a key part of the process.
Card agrees that solid processes are the foundation of any good picking solution.
"[Reducing mispicks requires] a combination of technology, process, and other things," he says. "Implementing new technology like automation can certainly help, but if you don't have good processes and policies around it, you're not going to [achieve] peak accuracy."
People are the other key element in the mix.
"You have to buy into how important the work environment is, because it plays into being able to reach that peak accuracy," Card adds. "Technology is only going to get you part way there."
Training programs for order pickers become an important piece of the equation, especially if a DC is working with system limitations—in most cases, this means a situation in which a system upgrade or replacement is too costly. Mulaik says developing awareness of where problems occur and training workers on how to deal with or work around those problems is vital to improving accuracy. Card adds that managers should reinforce training by rewarding workers for picking accuracy. This can be done creatively—with bonuses, time off, or some other form of recognition.
"[DCs] should look at their overall processes and say, 'How can we incorporate technology?,'" Card says. "But then you have to say, 'Are we doing things the right way? Are people motivated? Are they being rewarded for accuracy?' It's a combination of all that."
Successful integration of these elements helps drive organizations toward the ultimate goal of providing the best possible customer experience.
"Ultimately, it's about service," Mulaik says. "It's not so much about the cost of the mispick itself. Companies get upset about how [inaccuracy] impacts service."
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain” report.
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Freight transportation sector analysts with US Bank say they expect change on the horizon in that market for 2025, due to possible tariffs imposed by a new White House administration, the return of East and Gulf coast port strikes, and expanding freight fraud.
“All three of these merit scrutiny, and that is our promise as we roll into the new year,” the company said in a statement today.
First, US Bank said a new administration will occupy the White House and will control the House and Senate for the first time since 2016. With an announced mandate on tariffs, taxes and trade from his electoral victory, President-Elect Trump’s anticipated actions are almost certain to impact the supply chain, the bank said.
Second, a strike by longshoreman at East Coast and Gulf ports was suspended in October, but the can was only kicked until mid-January. Shipper alarm bells are already ringing, and with peak season in full swing, the West coast ports are roaring, having absorbed containers bound for the East. However, that status may not be sustainable in the event of a prolonged strike in January, US Bank said.
And third, analyst are tracking the proliferation of freight fraud, and its reverberations across the supply chain. No longer the realm of petty criminals, freight fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated, and the financial toll of their activities in the loss of goods, and data, is expected to be in the billions, the bank estimates.
The move delivers on its August announcement of a fleet renewal plan that will allow the company to proceed on its path to decarbonization, according to a statement from Anda Cristescu, Head of Chartering & Newbuilding at Maersk.
The first vessels will be delivered in 2028, and the last delivery will take place in 2030, enabling a total capacity to haul 300,000 twenty foot equivalent units (TEU) using lower emissions fuel. The new vessels will be built in sizes from 9,000 to 17,000 TEU each, allowing them to fill various roles and functions within the company’s future network.
In the meantime, the company will also proceed with its plan to charter a range of methanol and liquified gas dual-fuel vessels totaling 500,000 TEU capacity, replacing existing capacity. Maersk has now finalized these charter contracts across several tonnage providers, the company said.
The shipyards now contracted to build the vessels are: Yangzijiang Shipbuilding and New Times Shipbuilding—both in China—and Hanwha Ocean in South Korea.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”