Comparison of operations with and without Hi Park
| Theme | Current Practices | With Hi Park | Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land Use | Flat storage, constrained density | Verticalized (3D) storage | Reduced footprint or increased capacity with constant land use |
| Handling | Manual movements, dependent on teams | Automated handling controlled by software orchestration | Less labor, secure movements |
| Performance at High Density | Degraded productivity as the park fills up | Identical performance at high density | Stable performance and reduction of parasitic movements |
| Deadlines & Anticipation | Daily process between orders and execution | Possibility to anticipate and smooth out | Reduced waiting times, fewer uncertainties |
| Climatic Exposure | Vehicles exposed (rain, hail, heat, wind) | Covered / sheltered storage | Reduced climatic risks |
| Security / Malicious Acts | Accessible park, risk of intrusion | Controlled vehicle access | Reduced risks, better traceability |
| Damage & Integrity | Multiple handling, risk of shocks | Standardized flows, controlled movements | Reduced damage |
| Inventory | Periodic inventories, discrepancies | System location + traceability | Simplified inventory |
| Continuity | Depends on schedules, weather, teams | Continuous process (24/7 possible) | Regular flow |
| Control | Scattered tracking, partial data | Structured data | Better control, reliable KPIs |
Site creation/extension: classic vs Hi Park
| Theme | Classic Site | With Hi Park | Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land Sizing | Surface consistent with future flows required from the start | Start on constrained footprint, densification later | Reduced land risk, better feasibility |
| Extension | Extension = new hectares | Scaling by modules | Scalability, controlled flexibility |
| CAPEX | High CAPEX to anticipate growth | Phased CAPEX aligned with flows | Less immobilization, better ROI |
| Continuity during evolution | Disruptive work | Progressive integration possible | Reduction of disruptions |
| Difficult locations | Projects blocked by land scarcity | Smaller/constrained sites possible | Opens new sites |
| Positioning | More remote sites | Better positioned sites | Transport gains, delays |
| Project Risk | High risk if flows not materialized | Step-by-step scaling, reversibility | Reduced investment risk |
| Relocation | Immobilized developments | Modular and demountable solution | Better strategic flexibility |
| Photovoltaic | Impact on density and risks | Relevant, without impact on density | Better yields |
| Environmental Impact | Surface artificialization | Less consumption, recyclable | More environmentally friendly |
| Sovereignty | N/A | 100% French product | European sovereignty |
Proof of Hi Park's suitability for FVL
FVL-first: designed for the real constraints of FVL.
In the FVL world, storage ranges from a few days (transit) to 30-60 days (long-term storage), with peak flows and high availability requirements. Hi Park was designed for this spectrum: densify without penalizing cycles.
Performance & Scalability: scalable robotic architecture.
Hi Park relies on 3D storage and automated handling. Performance sized according to the expected service:
- 1 robot can handle up to ~4,000 spaces, with short cycle times (~3.3 min).
- By multiplying robots (~1,000 spaces/robot), cycle time < ~2 min.
Result: Hi Park meets various FVL needs:
- Short transit: fast cycles via service sizing.
- Long-term storage: high density, controlled costs.
Sizing according to FVL needs
| FVL Need | Sizing | Operational Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Short transit (high turnover) | More robots / ~1,000 spaces/robot | Short cycles, better cut-off compliance, profitability |
| Long-term storage (>30 days, low turnover) | Fewer robots / up to ~4,000 spaces/robot | Optimized CAPEX, max density, smoothed operation |