5 Myths About Material Handling That Cost You Money

Material handling is the backbone of any industrial operation, yet many businesses operate under outdated or incorrect assumptions that lead to inefficiencies, safety hazards, and unnecessary costs. Studies suggest that inefficient material handling can add up to 20% in unnecessary expenses annually. Misconceptions about equipment, workflow design, and automation can quietly drain profits and lower productivity.

Let’s break down five common myths that might be costing you money—and what you should consider instead.

Myth 1: “A Bigger Forklift Is Always Better”

Many businesses assume that investing in a large forklift will improve efficiency. After all, bigger means more powerful, right? Not always.

Reality:

A forklift that’s too large for your warehouse or facility can actually decrease efficiency. Tight spaces make maneuvering difficult, leading to delays, product damage, and even safety hazards. Additionally, bigger forklifts consume more fuel or energy, increasing operational costs. Oversized equipment can also accelerate wear and tear on flooring, adding hidden maintenance expenses.

What to do instead:

Choose material handling equipment based on actual space constraints and load requirements. In some cases, a pallet truck or a reach truck might be more practical and cost-effective than a large forklift. Right-sizing your equipment ensures efficiency, safety, and cost control.

Myth 2: “More Automation Always Leads to Higher Productivity”

Automation is often marketed as the ultimate solution to inefficiency. While automation can be incredibly valuable, it’s not always the best fit for every operation.

Reality:

Over-automation can lead to excessive capital expenditure, maintenance costs, and a loss of operational flexibility. Automated systems require skilled maintenance personnel, and breakdowns can lead to costly downtime. In environments with high variability—such as mixed-product warehouses or seasonal operations—a hybrid approach, combining automation with skilled manual labor, can be far more effective.

What to do instead:

Assess your specific material handling needs before investing in automation. Consider semi-automated solutions that improve efficiency without the rigidity of full automation. Think about how automation will integrate with your workforce and existing processes to maximize ROI.

Myth 3: “Standard Equipment Works for Every Application”

Many companies believe that general-purpose equipment can handle all material handling tasks. This assumption often leads to underperformance and unnecessary wear and tear on machines.

Reality:

Different industries and materials have unique handling requirements. Using the wrong equipment can result in inefficiencies, increased maintenance costs, and even safety risks. For example, handling fragile goods requires specialized lifting equipment, while hazardous materials need explosion-proof handling solutions. Ignoring these nuances can lead to increased product damage, safety incidents, and inefficient workflows.

What to do instead:

Work with experts to ensure you’re using the right material handling equipment for your specific needs. Investing in tailored solutions can prevent long-term losses and operational inefficiencies. Choosing equipment designed for your unique materials will lead to smoother operations and cost savings.

Myth 4: “Material Handling Costs Are Fixed and Cannot Be Reduced”

Some businesses view material handling costs as a necessary expense with little room for optimization. However, this mindset often leads to missed opportunities for cost savings.

Reality:

Inefficient warehouse layouts, outdated equipment, and poor workflow planning can all contribute to unnecessary material handling expenses. Studies show that optimizing warehouse layout alone can improve productivity by 20-30%. Simple adjustments—such as optimizing storage design, using ergonomic handling solutions, or reducing unnecessary movements—can significantly lower costs.

What to do instead:

Conduct regular audits of your material handling processes to identify inefficiencies. Small changes, like rearranging product storage to minimize travel distances or adopting lean inventory practices, can yield significant savings over time.

Myth 5: “Material Handling Safety Is Just a Compliance Requirement”

Many businesses treat safety as a regulatory checkbox rather than a critical factor in efficiency and cost savings.

Reality:

Workplace accidents related to material handling result in downtime, legal liabilities, and increased insurance costs. According to industry data, businesses that invest in safety training see up to a 25% reduction in accident-related downtime. Proper safety protocols don’t just prevent injuries—they also minimize disruptions and boost employee morale, which translates to higher productivity.

What to do instead:

Prioritize a safety-first culture by training employees, conducting regular equipment checks, and ensuring that operators use the right tools for the job. Safety improvements often lead to long-term productivity gains. A proactive approach to safety reduces costs and improves overall operational efficiency.

Final Thoughts

Misconceptions in material handling can be costly, but they can also be corrected with informed decision-making. By challenging these common myths, businesses can improve efficiency, reduce costs, and create a safer working environment.

At SKEGA, we help businesses optimize their material handling strategies with tailored solutions. If you’d like to explore better ways to improve efficiency in your operations, let’s connect!