Fraunhofer IML and even logistics in Interview: On the Challenges of WMS Selection

In a nutshell: Optimized processes, greater transparency, and higher efficiency are among the key benefits of deploying a WMS (Warehouse Management System). The journey begins with selecting the right WMS — a process that presents companies with significant challenges. WMS projects demand considerable time and resources and are fraught with uncertainty. Typical mistakes at the project outset include starting too early, lack of clear structure, and the wrong focus. We spoke with Andreas Löwe, founder of even logistics, and Linda Maria Wings from Fraunhofer IML / Warehouse Logistics — two people working toward a similar goal but with different approaches: making the WMS market more transparent. The conversation covers typical mistakes in the selection process, the question of when which information is truly helpful, and why both platforms are more complementary than competing.

Where does the greatest challenge begin when a company selects a WMS?

Linda Maria Wings: The challenge actually starts with the requirements — and that sounds trivial at first, but it isn't. Everyone knows that software selection must be based on decision criteria. The real difficulty is juggling the volume and complexity of those requirements. Because it's not just about features. Many start from the feature side, but there's much more behind it: What project experience do I need from the Vendor? Which industry focus areas matter? How do I communicate requirements internally and how do I elicit them? That is the core challenge before you can even get started.

Andreas Löwe: What I would add: companies find it extremely difficult to move from the problem level to a Solution level. At the operational level, it happens quickly — this doesn't work, this is frustrating, I want this to be different. But then actually articulating what a concrete improvement should look like, and quantifying it on top of that — that is incredibly hard. And at the same time, it requires the right framework: a team that comes together, clarifies responsibilities, and takes the space to answer these questions seriously. That happens far less often than you'd think. And yet it's critical, because a WMS stays with a company for ten, fifteen years. This isn't something you want to replace the day after tomorrow.

Linda Maria Wings: That time horizon makes it even more specific. A WMS is the core system in intralogistics, with interfaces to the ERP, subsystems, and the entire system landscape. You can't draw the boundaries at the system itself — you have to view it in the broader context: What is the current system landscape, and what will it look like in the future?

Andreas Löwe: And the definition of where a WMS ends and where it begins is increasingly blurring. Every Vendor wants to cover a larger share of the value chain. WCS, WES — suddenly you have features in a system and nobody quite knows what is what anymore. This is particularly pronounced for WMS because it is such a central, multi-layered system.

How do companies typically approach the selection process, and where do the biggest mistakes happen?

Linda Maria Wings: I would distinguish between greenfield and brownfield here, because the types of mistakes differ. In a greenfield scenario, you have the opportunity to think through processes and systems from the start — but they exist in an idealized context. They haven't been tested yet, nothing has gone wrong. This leads to either over-engineering or overly simplistic thinking. Both drive up costs later, because you end up facing change requests you hadn't planned for.

Andreas Löwe: On the greenfield side I would add: the three dimensions — construction, software, and intralogistics technology — are almost always considered in isolation or in phases. But everything is interdependent. If I decide on a particular storage system, it may constrain my software options, because that Solution is only supported by certain systems. Thinking this through comprehensively doesn't happen nearly often enough. And then at some point you find yourself with two options and wonder how you got there.

Linda Maria Wings: In a brownfield scenario the challenge is different. You have existing processes that have grown over years and developed many individual workarounds. The mistake I see most often: companies try to transfer these as-is processes one-to-one into the new software. That usually doesn't work, and it doesn't align with the standard capabilities of the systems either. What you should do instead is pause, analyze the processes, define target processes, and then determine what the system needs to support them. Anyone who skips this step quickly ends up with oversized systems and exorbitant customization costs.

Andreas Löwe: That connects to what we discussed earlier: have you actually clearly defined your own objectives, or do you jump straight into the Solution discussion? This happens all the time. You have an anchor, a problem statement, and you want it solved now. But the fundamentals — assembling the team, clarifying responsibilities, defining KPIs, establishing measurability — get skipped. And that's what causes a surprising number of projects to fail. Logistics professionals are practitioners — that is a great strength. But for a project that is meant to last ten to fifteen years, pragmatism alone is not enough.

Where do the biggest misunderstandings arise between Vendors and users?

Linda Maria Wings: A classic problem is that the longlist is not compiled systematically. Someone knows someone, you attended a trade fair, a colleague recommended a system — and suddenly that becomes the basis. That isn't neutral; it is always shaped by the person who put the list together. And yet even the DACH market alone is very broad: many Vendors all have a WMS, but the differences lie in the feature sets as well as in project experience, competencies, project management, and post-go-live support. Far too rarely do companies actually look at all of this in detail and comprehensively.

Andreas Löwe: On the Vendor side, communication is often very feature- and technology-focused. But what the user actually needs is the translation: what does this mean for my process? When you walk past a booth at a trade fair, you see terms like "transparency" or "effi