CeMAT ASIA 2026: How to Source a Warehouse Automation System

A warehouse automation project can look convincing in a trade-show demonstration and still be wrong for the buyer’s inventory, order profile or building. CeMAT ASIA 2026 brings handling equipment, automated storage, conveyors, robots, forklifts, picking, packaging, controls and logistics software to the Shanghai New International Expo Centre from 3 to 6 November.

The practical value is not finding the fastest machine in the hall. It is identifying a system architecture that can handle the buyer’s normal day, peak period, exceptions and future product mix. That requires an operating-data pack before the show, clear boundaries between equipment and software suppliers, and post-show verification at a relevant reference installation.

Bring operating data, not a generic automation brief

Start with the flows the system must handle. Prepare a compact data pack using a representative period and a separate peak period:

SKU count, active SKU count and inventory by storage unit;
item and load dimensions, weights, stability and handling restrictions;
inbound receipts, pallets, cartons, totes and eaches by hour or day;
outbound orders, lines, units and cut-off times;
order-size distribution, single-line versus multi-line orders and priority rules;
replenishment frequency and reserve-to-pick movement;
returns, damaged goods, quarantine and other exception flows;
seasonality, promotions, new-product introductions and growth assumptions;
required service levels, accuracy and available operating hours;
building dimensions, columns, clear height, floor loading, docks and fire routes;
labour shifts, current productivity and tasks that are difficult to staff;
ERP, WMS and other systems that must exchange data with the project.

Totals alone are insufficient. Two warehouses shipping the same number of units can need different solutions if one handles uniform cartons by the pallet and the other picks thousands of small, slow-moving SKUs into mixed orders. Give suppliers the distribution behind the average.

Where final data cannot be shared before a confidentiality agreement, use a masked but structurally faithful sample. The supplier can then explain the concept and identify the missing data needed for a serious proposal.

Compare architectures before individual products

CeMAT ASIA’s official categories span mechanical handling, storage systems, pallets and bins, packaging and order picking, turnkey logistics systems, robot handling, controls, identification, sensors, software and loading technology. Use these halls to compare complete flow concepts first.

Storage and retrieval

Conventional racking, high-bay systems, stacker cranes, shuttles, mini-load equipment, vertical storage and robotic storage each suit different combinations of throughput, density, SKU profile, load size and building constraints.

Ask every candidate to show how stock enters storage, receives a location, is replenished, retrieved and returned after an exception. Record usable capacity rather than theoretical locations, and identify what happens when a crane, shuttle, lift, aisle or control zone is unavailable. Redundancy has different meanings in a multi-aisle system and a design with one shared bottleneck.

For brownfield projects, measure access, column grids, floor condition, ceiling services and the sequence required to keep operations running during installation. A compact layout can become expensive if structural work, fire modifications or a long shutdown sits outside the equipment quotation.

Transport, sorting and mobile robots

Conveyors, sorters, AGVs and AMRs should be assessed against route length, flow direction, load stability, intersections, congestion, charging, human interaction and changes in the workspace.

For fixed transport, examine accumulation, merge and divert logic, jam detection, bypasses and access for maintenance. For mobile robots, ask how fleet management assigns work, controls traffic, handles blocked paths, integrates doors and lifts, manages charging and recovers lost or unavailable units. A smooth ten-minute demo does not reveal performance when traffic is unbalanced or several exceptions occur together.

Compare system throughput at the limiting point, not by adding the nominal speeds of individual devices. Ask the supplier to show the assumptions, simulation or reference data supporting the proposed result.

Picking, packing and workstation design

Goods-to-person systems, pick-to-light, voice, robots, put walls, sortation and manual stations change both equipment flow and operator work. Bring order profiles, item characteristics, packaging rules and ergonomic constraints into the discussion.

Record the complete cycle: load presentation, identification, picking, confirmation, exception handling, container change, replenishment and dispatch. Ask how the workstation handles oversized, fragile, regulated, high-value or unscannable items that fall outside the standard flow. The fallback route should be part of the design rather than an improvised manual process after commissioning.

Packaging equipment belongs in the same analysis when carton erection, right-sizing, void fill, sealing, weighing, labelling or palletising controls downstream capacity. Confirm the data source for package selection and shipping labels, and how rework is handled.

Forklifts, loading and mixed manual operation

Full automation is not the default answer for every movement. Forklifts, reach trucks, tow tractors, lifting equipment, dock levellers and loading systems may remain the better choice for irregular loads, low-frequency tasks or flexible receiving and shipping areas.

Compare vehicle type, load, lift height, aisle, energy source, shift pattern, charging or refuelling, attachments, operator visibility, safety aids and maintenance support. For mixed automated and manual traffic, define zones, priorities, crossings and operating rules. The system proposal should account for people and vehicles that remain on site.

Establish the software and integration boundary

A warehouse project can involve ERP, order-management systems, WMS, WES, WCS, machine controls, fleet managers, scanners, printers and carrier platforms. Suppliers may use the same labels for different responsibilities, so ask each party to mark its software on one architecture diagram.

Clarify:

which system owns inventory, orders, locations, tasks and equipment status;
interfaces, message formats, timing and error handling;
allocation, wave, replenishment, sequencing and priority logic;
master-data creation and responsibility for data quality;
user roles, audit trails and operational reporting;
monitoring, alarms, remote access, backup and recovery;
software licensing, update policy and supported versions;
test environments, emulators and data needed before site commissioning.

Then agree who designs and tests each interface. A supplier saying that an API is available does not show that the required business process, error cases and performance have been implemented.

Use the four days as a progressive system review

3 November — compare flow concepts

Start with integrators and the major system families. Present the operating-data pack and ask for a first-pass flow diagram. Record which assumptions drive capacity, labour and space, and which inputs remain unknown.

By the end of the day, select a small number of architectures worth pursuing. Keep interesting individual products as options within those architectures rather than building a solution by collecting unrelated machines.

4 November — test bottlenecks and exceptions

Return with peak data and exception cases. Ask how the proposal handles late receipts, missing inventory, unreadable labels, damaged loads, urgent orders, replenishment shortages, equipment faults and manual intervention. Identify the bottleneck under each case.

Use live demonstrations to observe recovery, not just steady-state movement. Ask the exhibitor to stop or block a device where practical and safe, then explain detection, queue management, operator action and restart. Record the configuration behind every throughput claim.

5 November — close software, building and delivery scope

Review interfaces, controls, building works, utilities, fire and safety coordination, installation sequencing, testing, training and ramp-up. Mark buyer, integrator and third-party responsibilities on the layout and project schedule.

Compare commercial proposals using the same scope. Include engineering, equipment, software, licences, interfaces, structural and electrical works, freight, installation, commissioning, spares, training and performance testing. Items not yet priced should remain visible as assumptions rather than disappearing from the comparison.

6 November — define the evidence after Shanghai

The final day ends at 2:00 pm. Use it for planned return meetings and to agree on the next proposal stage. Define the data package, site survey, simulation, concept drawing, budget or binding quotation expected from each candidate, plus the owner and deadline.

The result should be two or three comparable system studies, not a long list of equipment contacts.

Add PTC ASIA for selected component workstreams

PTC ASIA 2026 is held on the same dates at the same venue. It covers hydraulics, pneumatics, seals, motors, reducers, gears, bearings, chains, belts and related transmission components.

CeMAT buyers may add a targeted PTC block when they manufacture handling equipment, intend to specify key components directly, or have a recurring maintenance problem involving drives, hydraulics or bearings. A warehouse owner buying a turnkey system normally benefits more from holding the integrator accountable for component selection and support than from independently replacing the integrator’s bill of materials.

Xentra’s separate guide to power transmission component sourcing at PTC ASIA covers that engineering task in depth. The present route keeps warehouse flow, software and system delivery as the anchor decision.

Visit a reference operation before relying on a factory tour

For a warehouse automation project, a relevant operating site often answers more than a general equipment factory. It can show real inventory, peak management, operator interaction, exception recovery, maintenance access, software use and support after commissioning.

Ask each integrator for references with comparable load type, order profile, throughput, automation architecture and operating environment. Access requires the site owner’s advance approval, and commercially sensitive data may remain unavailable. Prepare a focused observation list and distinguish what is visible from what still needs documentary evidence.

A factory visit becomes useful when the supplier manufactures a critical robot, conveyor, sorter, crane, shuttle, vehicle or control cabinet and the buyer needs to understand design, assembly, testing, configuration or spare-parts support. Confirm which work occurs at the proposed site before travelling.

Compare cost through the same operating scenario

Assess capital cost together with expected labour, energy, maintenance, software, spares, consumables, building work, support and planned upgrades. Use the same demand, wage, shift, availability and growth assumptions for every option.

Also compare ramp-up risk. A highly automated design may promise greater long-term savings while demanding more master-data work, integration, testing and operational change. A staged or hybrid design may enter service faster and preserve flexibility. The better choice is the architecture that meets the service requirement with risks and responsibilities the buyer can manage.

Official sources and update

Information checked and updated on 30 July 2026. Confirm the final exhibitor list, hall plan, registration and programme with the organisers before travel.

Xentra Global can help international warehouse and factory teams prepare operating data, shortlist CeMAT integrators, coordinate meetings and interpretation, compare system proposals and arrange focused reference-site or supplier visits after the show.