**4. Definition of the maturity model**

As discussed in the previous chapters, the search for commonalities and differences in antecedent maturity assessment models mainly led to findings that underline the process-oriented view. By considering this view, the initial model will assess the most important areas of action within a warehouse, such as unloading, receiving, put-away, storage, picking, packing, loading and shipping. During the investigations into maturity dimensions from other domains such as logistics and industry 4.0, more contributing aspects are identified. Notably, the maturity models from the domain of industry 4.0 extend the initial process model. Regarding the first group of findings, the results that were obtained by comparing warehouse and industry 4.0 models pointed to additional important features, such as a general process-oriented approach, people, technology adoption and implementation and lastly organizational aspects. These features are considered relevant because they refer to the approach that industry 4.0 concepts take. These concepts are important for the present research, as this study is interested in assessing warehouse maturity regarding the realization of a fully autonomously operating warehouse – a concept deeply grounded in the environment of industry 4.0.

By combining these findings, it becomes apparent that the classical approach of a two-dimensional view, that most maturity models incorporate, starts to evolve. Currently, each dimension added to the model requires more attributes to be considered. The perspective of process control by management, the relevance of people in focused processes and the organization itself have consequences for each of the maturity dimensions. It can be safely assumed that for each of these elements, individual maturities can be assessed and therefore addressed for improvements. Hence, the proposed maturity model includes for the first dimensions process-related 'dimensions' and for the second dimension, intersectional factors like process and people management, technology applied and the organizational design (**Figure 1**).

As presented in the previous section, mostly consistent findings pointed to the usage of either 5 or 6 maturity levels. As explained by DeBruin et al. [9], it is important that all the levels are clearly defined, distinct and logically progressing from one to another. Furthermore, the authors underline the importance of all requirements and

**Figure 1.** *Warehouse maturity assessment model.*


#### **Table 4.**

*Description of generic maturity levels.*

how the measurements are detailed. In this reasoning, maturity levels are supposed to represent a certain degree of maturity in their respective dimension and allow for improvements in a chosen field of interest. To operationalize the measurements, every level needs respective denotation and furthermore, a general description. The present approach proposes 5 generic and logically succeeding maturity levels, which are portrayed in the following table (**Table 4**).

Reflecting on the foregoing sections, the above illustration shows the warehouse maturity assessment model. In the upper-top area, the warehouse process-oriented dimensions are recognizable, while on the right-hand side the maturity levels are shown vice-versa. In comparison to other existing maturity models, the differences are becoming clearer as illustrated by the bottom area, which additionally integrates the socio-technical viewpoint. A socio-technical system usually considers three main building blocks: a technological, an organizational and a workforce-related, respectively human-oriented one. To complement the process-oriented maturity dimensions and interlink them with the socio-technical system, this study considers an additional, generic process management layer for this model. This link between the shopfloor-related warehouse processes and the management of those processes allows for a more complete and holistic analysis of other important aspects of warehouse maturity. Any process in each warehouse setting builds on organizational elements, technological equipment and foremost on people. Furthermore, processes can be characterized by flows of different types. The flow of goods (MFT) often marks a starting point, followed by the flow of information (IFT) and the flow of finances (FFT). Another important aspect to consider is the way organizations document their own processes. Such documentations mark an essential orientation for employees and managers who are involved in developing and improving current processes**.**

Since this study aims to measure maturity in various areas of warehouse operations, the above-listed maturity dimensions need to be adjusted individually. The required adjustments will still follow the above-defined generic maturity dimensions but will slightly differ to capture the specific nature of maturity in selected warehouse maturity dimensions. As per follows, the required adjustments in the case of one exemplary maturity dimension, the process of unloading trucks, shall be presented.

*Autonomous Warehousing: Development and Application of a Maturity Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104184*

As **Table 5** shows, the individual adjustments span over all sub-elements that were identified to be important per singular process-step. **Table 5** extends these denotations by addressing the sub-element of organization, where three more important elements were found.


As listed in **Table 6**, the extended denotations for the maturity levels of the subelement of organizational aspects are detailed.

*a Quality management system*

#### **Table 5.**

*Exemplary description of maturity dimensions for the process "unloading of trucks".*


#### **Table 6.**

*Description of maturity dimensions for the process 'unloading of trucks'.*
