What an AGV Consulting Engagement Includes

An AGV consulting engagement should end in a decision: proceed, change the process, use a different method, or stop. If the work only produces a slide deck that restates a vendor’s concept, it was not independent. It was documentation of a sale already underway.

What you buy at this stage is a fixed-price feasibility study, not detailed design, installation, or vehicle procurement. Those belong later, and only if the study says the project should proceed. The deliverables are listed on the feasibility study scope page.

What the Engagement Covers

Part of the work	What it answers
Current-state assessment	What actually moves, in what volume, on which paths, with which constraints
Process and layout review	Whether the current method should be automated as-is or redesigned first
Technical feasibility	Floors, traffic, wireless, charging, load handling, and safety limits
Concept and alternatives	Whether AGV, AMR, conveyor, a process change, or no automation is the right next question — not a vehicle count
Risk and ROI	What can break the payback, and whether capital still makes sense
Recommended next step	Stop, fix the process, write a spec, or go to RFP

That is the feasibility study. It decides whether a project is worth specifying. It does not size a fleet.

What a Four-Week Engagement Looks Like in Practice

A mid-size plant wants to automate pallet moves between packaging and a warehouse. Vendors have already guessed at eight to fourteen vehicles. A four-week study would typically run like this:

Week 1 — current state. Walk the moves at peak, not only on a quiet tour. Capture volumes, exceptions, mixed traffic, and what operators actually do when a load is late.
Week 2 — constraints. Floor, wireless, charging, doors, and any hazardous-classification or emergency-access limits. Decide which flows are stable enough to automate.
Week 3 — options. AGV, AMR, conveyor, a process change, or stop. The question is whether a vehicle count is even the right next step, not which of the vendor guesses to accept.
Week 4 — decision package. Risks, ROI under those constraints, and a vendor-neutral next step finance can use.

If week 1 shows the process still changes every shift, the study should say so and stop there. Continuing into vehicle concepts would be the vendor survey the plant already has.

The written output should be usable by finance and operations without the consultant in the room: the moves in scope, the constraints that will not move, the recommended path, and what would have to be true to proceed. If that document still needs a salesperson to interpret it, the engagement did not finish.

What the Plant Has to Provide

Consulting cannot replace operating knowledge. Before kickoff, the plant should be able to supply:

The moves you are considering, and a sample of actual volumes
Access to the floor, including peak periods if they matter
Known constraints: docks, columns, hazardous classification, floor issues, traffic rules
A named decision-maker and what “feasible” means to finance

If that package does not exist, the first week of the engagement will be spent collecting it. That is still useful. It is not the same as a study of a defined operation. Hire after you can describe the work, not before. See why you shouldn’t automate broken processes.

What Is Not Included

A feasibility study is not:

Detailed electrical, controls, or mechanical design
Vehicle purchase, software licenses, or installation
A guarantee that AGVs will be recommended
A manufacturer’s complimentary site survey

Those last two points matter. Independent consulting has to be able to say no. A vendor survey is built to sell a platform. Mixing the two is how plants buy a system before they have a scope. The role split is in AGV consultant vs. system integrator.

Optional Follow-On Work

If the study says proceed, the same independent advisor can stay for:

A vendor-neutral specification
RFP support and proposal comparison
Design reviews during integrator execution
Acceptance criteria at go-live

That follow-on work is a separate engagement. It should not be bundled in a way that makes the original study dependent on later installation revenue. If it is, the first report was never independent.

How Long It Takes

A focused feasibility study is typically 3–4 weeks, assuming site access and data. Larger multi-building or hazardous operations take longer because the constraints take longer to walk. Speed is not the goal. A rushed study that accepts the vendor’s fleet count is not cheaper. It is a delayed discovery of the same risk.

Live plants need extra attention to phasing and cutover. That is part of feasibility, not an installation afterthought. See brownfield AGV projects.

Key Takeaways

The engagement should end in a go, a process change, or a stop — not a product recommendation by default
The study covers current state, process, technical fit, risk, and ROI. It does not size a fleet
The plant must provide moves, access, constraints, and a decision owner
Design, buy, and install are not part of the feasibility fee
Follow-on spec and RFP support should stay independent of equipment sales

Frequently Asked Questions

Is AGV consulting the same as a vendor feasibility study?

No. A vendor study sizes that vendor’s system. Independent AGV consulting tests whether any system belongs, and what scope competing vendors should bid against.

Do we get a recommended AGV model?

You should get a recommended approach and constraints. Naming a single model too early is how one product line becomes the design. Vehicle selection comes after process and requirements.

Can the same firm install the system later?

If they do, treat the first study as not independent. Advice and installation revenue should not sit in the same incentive.

What does a finished engagement look like internally?

A document finance and operations can use to approve, pause, or kill the project — plus a vendor-neutral next step if the project is alive.

Review our feasibility study scope for the deliverables in a fixed-price AGV consulting engagement.