The solution worked because DENSO matched the robot structure to the environment and treated associates as participants in the transition.¹²

WorkedDid not

Time allocation

Robots took conveyance from associates.¹

Manual movement consumed about 60% of time.²

Distance

Walking demand was reduced as robots conveyed materials.¹

Associates could walk up to 12 miles per day.²

Technology fit

AMRs mapped quickly and adapted to dynamic environments.²

AGVs were too infrastructure-heavy.²

Transition

Associates simulated robot tasks before launch.¹

Early issues required a week of testing.¹

DENSO’s design choice was structural rather than merely technical. AMRs suited a setting where routes and conditions could change, while the rejected AGV approach would have demanded heavier infrastructure.² That distinction allowed the company to begin with warehouse-to-line-side conveyance and later extend the pattern to work-in-process movement and the gasoline plant.¹

The human transition was equally important. Associates simulated the robot tasks, giving the implementation a practical test before normal operations.¹ After deployment, robots handled conveyance and associates took on higher-value tasks, with clearer accountability and less tension around delivery correctness.¹

DENSO repurposed warehouse workflows around AMRs and reshaped roles unexpectedly