In brief
Load, relations, time profile, layout and expected change determine whether fixed conveyors, mobile automation or manually operated vehicles fit.
Which transport technology fits?
Fixed conveyors fit stable, high-frequency relations; AGV and AMR combine automation with more flexible routing; manually operated vehicles remain useful for changing tasks and lower automation value.
Decision criteria
| Criterion | Fixed conveyor | AGV/AMR | Forklift/tugger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relations | stable | several, adjustable | highly variable |
| Frequency | high and even | medium to high | low to medium |
| Layout dependency | high | medium | low |
| Scaling | equipment stages | vehicles and infrastructure | people and vehicles |
Use the same system boundary
Equipment price is not a system comparison. Transfer stations, buffers, safeguards, charging, fleet control, interfaces, building changes, operation, maintenance and fallback are included for every option.
Stable relation?
Test fixed technology at high continuous frequency.
Variable destinations?
Compare AGV or AMR with manual vehicles.
Uncertain peaks?
Capture profiles and test dynamics.
Expected changes?
Assess flexibility as an explicit criterion.
Performance and availability
Nominal equipment performance is not system throughput. Transfer points, intersections, lifts, identification and downstream workstations can become bottlenecks. Buffers decouple processes but need space and clear control logic.
Comparison approach
- Build the transport matrix and profiles.
- Check technical exclusions and environment.
- Create organisational and technical alternatives.
- Size performance, availability and expansion on the same boundary.
- Compare total cost and utility.
- Detail the preferred option in layout and operating concept.
Related services: conveyor technology, AGV and AMR planning and material flow analysis.