Two Logistics Center Openings: Strategic Greenfield vs. Reacting to Urgent Need

This episode of Rozmowy Logistyków was recorded at the Logistics & Warehouse Trends conference — Piotr Skobało and Adam Sobolewski present two of their own business cases for opening a logistics center at retail companies. They discuss cost, worker availability, and other factors that decided operational effectiveness in both cases.

TWO DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS

The first project (a Polish retail company, omnichannel model) resulted from organic growth — tens of percent year over year, until the existing logistics network could no longer keep up. The second (a global e-commerce player) was a reaction to a shock: a year-over-year sales spike in February-March 2021 showed that with the current setup, the company wouldn't handle the fourth quarter — the decision for a new fulfillment center was made under time pressure, not after lengthy analysis.

LOCATION: EVEN UNDER TIME PRESSURE, YOU CAN'T THINK SHORT-TERM

The first project was a full greenfield (Build to Suit) with an industrial real estate advisor involved — the recommendation: it's worth using such a firm, unless you have deep knowledge of site development and land risks yourself. The second project chose among already-mapped, available buildings (eventually a returns center temporarily converted for 6-9 months into a fulfillment center). A key protip despite the time pressure: a location decision always plays out over a 3-5 year horizon, so even one made quickly has to account for how the center will function long-term, not just "right now."

DESIGN DETAILS THAT DON'T MAKE THE FIRST SLIDE OF A PRESENTATION

Floor load capacity and clear height are the obvious parameters — but real cases reveal traps beyond them: offices designed non-compliantly with regulations required moving container walls for three months; an imprecise lawn-mowing contract generated unnecessary costs every two weeks instead of every four (plus the recommended pause on mowing in summer due to drought). Social infrastructure (number of toilets, space outside the warehouse floor) for hundreds of employees can be just as critical a blocker as the building's technical parameters.

ASSORTMENT ASSUMPTIONS MUST BE VERIFIED, NOT ASSUMED

A warehouse designed for the Small & Light category (products under 1.5 kg, no high-bay storage, no reserve space) hit a real problem: around 1.5% of delivery volume turned out to be oversized products with nowhere to store them — they had to be rerouted to other warehouses in the network. The opposite case: a warehouse designed for appliances (products stored mostly on the floor, wide aisles) evolved over time as the sales mix changed. The conclusion: thoroughly check and re-verify assumptions about product, packaging, and pallet dimensions before locking in the physical infrastructure design.

DELIBERATELY SKIPPING AUTOMATION HAS CONSEQUENCES

In the second project, installing an outbound sorter (despite being a typical element of an e-commerce center) was deliberately skipped due to construction time constraints — sorting by direction and carrier was done manually. The consequence surfaced later: a change to courier label logic introduced by another team (removing the carrier code, leaving just the QR) nearly blocked the entire outbound flow, because manual visual sorting (reading the direction by eye) stretched parcel handling time from 20-30 seconds to 60-90. The change was rolled back at 2am and rescheduled for a calmer period.

THE TEAM GROWS WITH THE SEASON, IT DOESN'T START AT FULL STRENGTH

The second center launched with a staff of 500, reaching 800 at the December peak — the shift structure evolved from 5 days/2 shifts to full 24/7 with a front/back split. A key recommendation about workforce location: official unemployment statistics can be misleading (one project near the German border recruited for six months, because half the "unemployed" in the region were actually working informally abroad) — it's worth checking with someone who already runs operations in the region.

WHAT WENT WRONG DESPITE HITTING THE SCHEDULE

Both centers launched on schedule — but in one case, the WMS system "drifted": it shipped product X to location A while the system recorded product Y at location B, resulting in mismatched store inventory and incorrect shipments to e-commerce customers. The key lesson: always have a backup process for when the system fails — without one, the situation would have been much more serious than it actually was.