Podcast: Intralogistics of the future

In the 81st episode of Something with logistics Hosters Thomas & Jens talk together with Wolfgang Hackenberg (SYNAOS) and Peter Neuling (Volkswagen) about the use of logistical complexity using data. In addition to the actual technical solution, Wolfgang also explains the potential and vision of SYNAOS. Peter, who, together with the SYNAOS team, is involved in the implementation at Volkswagen, provides an insight into practice and user perspective.

Listen to the episode now!

Click on the button below to load the content of somethings-with-logistik.podigee.io.

Loading content

THINK COMPLEX, ACT SMARTLY

Thomas: Yesterday the truck killed me, today stress with shopping and now this crap. Which idiot put that up here? Don't you have a podcast?

Jens: Boss? Boss? What a podcast!

Thomas: Well, something with logistics!

Thomas: Something with logistics. The podcast with topics that are not always entirely scientific, about the exciting world of logistics, presented by Andreas, Jens and Thomas.

Thomas: Hi and welcome to a new episode of Something with Logistics. I'm here today with Jens at the start. Hi Jens.

Jens: Hi!

Thomas: And then we have two guests with us today, namely Wolfgang from SYNAOS and Peter from VW. Hi you two.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Hi

Peter Neuling: Hi.

Thomas: I would suggest that before I talk a lot of nonsense about what you do or maybe don't do, introduce yourself first before we go straight into the topic.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Yes, I'll jump right in then. Wolfgang. I am one of the three founders of SYNAOS and working as CEO. So I have all the strategic topics — sales, HR, etc., and previously spent ten years working in the automotive industry in the area of logistics IT and did a lot with digitalization. That's when we founded SYNAOS, and we'll talk about it right away. Maybe that much about me for now.

Thomas: Yes, then I'll give my staff to you Peter.

Peter Neuling: My name is Peter. I'm from Volkswagen in Group IT. I am responsible for manufacturer-independent control for driverless transport systems and have been with the company for a long time. I have 15 years of logistical experience and have been in IT for a few years now.

Thomas: Okay, SYNAOS is kind of a term you don't know. A name you don't know like that. What exactly is behind SYNAOS? What is your product? What do you earn money from? Tell me a bit.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Yes, I'd love to. SYNAOS is a software company from Hanover. We are now two years old and have 80 employees. SYNAOS stands for Synchronizing Chaos, i.e. we combine creative chaos with a major organizing factor and have a very big vision. We develop software, an operating system, as we call it SYNA.OS, for cross-site, i.e. comprehensive optimization of intralogistics, both in factories and in warehouses.

Jens: I would jump right into that. Why would you like to synchronize chaos and not simply, I say, make chaos disappear? Isn't that actually the most obvious thing when you look at production, intralogistics, production logistics? Who is in the mood for chaos?

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Yes, I think you can do chaos — chaos doesn't stand for real chaos now — but you can do a certain complexity, if we want to describe it that way, you won't be able to prevent it. That's just the way it is. Today, you have the most complex supply relationships, the most complex tasks in intralogistics and there is simply a reason for complexity. And now you can decide in two directions: You can try to combat this complexity. Yes, that has been done for a long time and many of us are trained to combat this complexity. Or you can simply make positive use of what the complexity brings with it, a whole lot of data in order to make full use of this complexity. Using the positive power of complexity. We see a huge opportunity in this, because you will meet the requirements that customers have today, that are placed on logistical networks. You'll have a complexity in it and you'll have to use it as well as possible. That is our vision and that is where we go, namely data-driven.

Jens: I think it's a pretty cool vision. Well, I must honestly say I've never heard of it. Normally, as you've just described it, the approach is to say I reduce complexity and don't take advantage of complexity. Perhaps a question before you explain, in addition to the vision, what a sentence is actually about, what your product actually is. How did you come up with the idea that I adapt, I participate in complexity and chaos and I don't reduce complexity and chaos. Was there an initial thought boost, something that told you: Okay, this is the right way and not an avoidance.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Yes exactly. We have a background in the automotive industry and I'll just explain it using this example. However, this can also be transferred to warehouses. As a result of increased customer requirements over time, as a result of development, the megatrends that we all know is simple, the level of complexity has increased significantly. If you have a vehicle today, you have 200 different steering wheels, which must be brought to the line in this example now. So, and you can't tell the customer what it was like with Henry Ford anymore: You can have the car in any color, the main thing is black and we have zero complexity in it and I can bring huge containers to the line. But you have complexity and it's the same in the warehouse. You have shorter and shorter order times, need to deliver faster and so on. And now, of course, you can think about it all day long, so we don't want to promote complexity, but you always have a certain level of complexity and that simply creates data. The new technologies that exist, the digitization technologies. If you use them skillfully, they help to present great flexibility in this large complexity environment and actually use it. That is exactly where we start and that is our vision. If I answer your second question now, it is to offer a holistic solution — holistic optimization — with new planning algorithms for entire locations, entire factories, entire warehouses, and really from incoming goods to outgoing goods. That is something that is possible today. We'll get right into that here. With cloud technology, we can deal with this complexity in a completely different way and we do that for mobile robots, we do it for human-guided systems such as forklifts, load trains and we do that for people. We integrate these three major components into holistic planning and optimization, and that makes us unique. Our first product, we call the whole SYNA.OS for operating system — for logistics, for mobile robots — is a solution that can independently control and optimize large fleets of robots, mobile robots, i.e. AGVs or AMRs, manufacturers, with a focus on process optimization. That is very, very important. Not with a focus on hardware, as many systems do today, but on process optimization.

Thomas: Are these actually the points that you just raised at the end: The topic of process optimization and merging, cross-manufacturer AGVs, AMRs and so on. Is that exactly what distinguishes you from other systems? Because in the end I always thought you had an AGV controller somehow. This is a transport management system like any other, which is integrated into a warehouse management system. Yes and I thought there were already a few of them or what is it exactly what I said at the beginning, your distinguishing feature plus the complexity of the data, etc.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: I'll include that again with the data because I think it's very, very important. Of course, as a first step, you can say that we have developed something similar to a manufacturer-independent AGV or AGV control system. But the vision, which is very important to us, is much bigger. It also includes forklifts and people, an integrated optimization. It has very, very huge levers. What makes us different: We are independent of manufacturers, we have a very strong — we may hear from Peter right away — a very strong process view of things. We don't just look at any vehicles, but if you have 200 vehicles on a card, then you're not interested in every single vehicle anymore, but whether the deliveries are on time. Are the orders there when they need to be there and we have a new planning approach and that makes it special. Now we can also put an end to the complexity and the data. Today, planning is carried out in waves, in the various systems. Once a day, once an hour. What we do is a constant comparison between the real-time image and the plan image, with a constant optimization of the plan. To do this, we calculate new solutions thousands of times a second. Today, a lot of decisions are made based on KPIs, which are aggregated from millions of real-time data, and people then have to make decisions very often. What we do: We take all the data we have into the decision, at any time and even on a smaller, smaller scale, we calculate 250,000 solutions per second and we always choose the best one. That doesn't mean emergency strategies. All of this is omitted and we always have an optimal solution.

thomas: Peter, I would love to see you again.. Hello to you. I would like to wave over to you what Wolfgang has just described and both very vividly and with a great deal of conviction. Wolfgang, you can tell that you are not only the CEO of the solution, but you love the solution, you live the solution. Do you agree with him that this is exactly the right approach? Actually to embrace complexity, get the best out of it and, above all, add higher-level control optimization to the processes that happen on the shop floor.

Peter Neuling: Yes, I don't think we can get around it. I'd like to make it a bit more specific. We have a project in Hanover, where we want 200 AGVs to run, 175 undercarriage vehicles and then around 30 tractors. You can imagine that there is, of course, a lot of data involved. Especially since we sometimes also have to communicate with systems or transfer points. Of course, this creates huge amounts of data. In this respect, I agree with what Wolfgang said here. The topic of overarching control also simply has to be seen that way. We've got it. We've been following this issue for a bit longer. You are certainly familiar with this VDA 5050. As I said, when we have two different types of vehicles that we operate, also from two different manufacturers. Because they don't even exist from a single manufacturer, as we need them. Such a higher-level controller that operates a standard interface is essential, otherwise it won't work. You can imagine that the hall is 250 by 250 meters in size, there are 200 vehicles moving there. You have something like that on the screen and that's it.

Jens: But we're talking, just to understand, when we talk about control and talk about complexity, we're talking primarily now just so that I can correctly classify it again. Especially in the area of AGVs, AGVs, self-driving vehicles in direct contact with people on the shop floor. That is where you are mainly currently working and where you also have an eye on it, where, from your point of view, the complexity is also in. Right?

Peter Neuling: Yes, of course, the human being is far from gone because of that.

Jens: That's right. And then the question: Where might the limit of complexity be at some point? The manageability of complexity when other aspects also come into play. For example, I am now thinking bluntly in the direction of intralogistics in order picking robots or sorting in conveyor technology, in perhaps also between buffers, with shuttle vehicles with robot-driven storage systems and so on and so forth. If I always extend, expand, expand these AGVs, always with one more component, is the end somewhere due to the complexity? Or are you set up and structured in such a way that it is not so important how many different types are considered, but can the result always be optimized?

Wolfgang Hackenberg: That is exactly where our expertise also lies. You have to be clear. We have the algorithms that are in the background, we have developed them over the years and have combined them with very powerful computing technology, i.e. with cloud technology, which we can use locally, but also in our own cloud. There are actually no limits anymore. You have to say that very clearly. That is, but also because the data we're talking about is data, that's a status message, that's events, there's battery levels and all that stuff that we have, or position data. We're not talking about any sensor data, any images that are being transported through the area, but there are lots and lots of messages, millions of events, but they are very small in scope and that's why we don't see any limitations for now. It is then more a question of how do you set up this algorithm so that it processes it optimally. How do you turn the whole thing on. At a later stage, which is not the focus this year, we also want to include machines with them, i.e. really machine occupancy planning, so that we can then really offer a comprehensive optimum solution to a finished location. But this year it's robots, forklifts, load trains and people and we can do that without any problems in the scope that we know. We often simulate volumes of 600 vehicles, 12,000 orders, and that's no problem at all.

Thomas: Keyword simulation. That's exactly where I wanted to hook in. I had a look at your new YouTube video and that's when the topic of simulation came up and that you are actually constantly optimizing. Be proactive to determine the best routes. Does that add to the complexity? So that you not only control the orders, how they just come in or how they have to be processed, due to some transport orders and so on. So that's still further into the future or the question: How far into the future are you looking anyway? That you're still looking in there, looking ahead to control the entire system. I think that is also an insane complexity that you have there.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: I'd like to split it in two. We can simulate, we can emulate. This means that we can, for example, if a customer says that this is my layout and I would now like to process the orders and in which the orders here, then we can simulate this in advance with our software. We say so and so many vehicles do you need, etc. We can do that and then we have that was one point and the other point is that we always look ahead in planning. But that is less of a simulation. We do it with heuristics, with metaheuristics. We always look, and that now depends on a customer scenario, how to parameterize the whole thing. But we always look ahead by half an hour, 10 minutes, an hour, two hours and that helps us.

Thomas: So far?

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Yes, that helps us to plan resources so well. Let me give you a banal example: You have a large hall and you have an order and you know that on the other hand, you need an AGV to pick something up in ten minutes. Current systems, which somehow plan very sequentially, plan the double jump, then drive off and drive there through the hall for 10 minutes. But we know that in 10 minutes and 15 seconds, another AGV will be released and that's why I don't need all this movement. I look into the future and I know that's when something comes out there optimally and we do that hundreds of thousands of times every second.

Thomas: I think that's a very exciting approach. I also think that is exactly the right approach to avoid things more often. To then also give priority to this by avoiding transport at the point or movement. A clear question about this: How do you achieve this added value, which is very clearly imaginable. How do you manage to tip this added value into business cases? I mean Peter, who said earlier that there is more or less no alternative somewhere or is absolutely necessary, the question does not arise at all. Nevertheless, you will or will often be confronted with this: Is it worth it? And if so, from when and in which period of time? Is there an ROI? Is there no ROI? How do you do that with such a system, which depends a lot on optimizing the current state through very, very clever computing operations? How can you tell where the added value really is before you even use it?

Wolfgang Hackenberg: I'll jump in, Peter, then you can add again afterwards. There are two developments: The market there is currently undergoing major changes. You feel that too and of course we feel it too. And you have to say that the automotive industry, where we originally come from, is already a step ahead. They have had these autonomous systems for many years and they now have a pain that is constantly increasing in logistics, across the board. What we often notice with logisticians that they have the same pain is a very simple lever. You have vehicles from manufacturer A, and you now need to pack more vehicles in. It may not have the capabilities of the other vehicles that you need and they can't drive on the same layout, because today's systems can only ever run with a backend control center behind them. They can't travel on the same roads because they can't see each other. It's a very simple lever. You save yourself additional control centers if you have our universal control center, with which you can do everything. Now there is another development that now not only do robots drive around there, but you also have forklifts driving around there and they drive into each other quite often. A forklift drives in and closes an alley and the AGV can no longer pass through. There is some kind of deadlock and so on and we can then optimize that in an integrated way. This is yet another completely new category. Imagine that you have a warehouse with 30 robots and you can simply throw 20 forklifts in there during the Christmas shopping season and take them out again in January without anything happening. The orders are distributed and withdrawn seamlessly and that is the vision. We simply see that these are the starting points. Then, of course, we also have points where we say that through this optimization, we can also reduce the number of robots that are needed by 20 to 30 percent. As an example has just explained, we can significantly reduce movement. You can expand the layout much better, you have significantly less traffic and that's all things that you have to bring together. Depending on how the customer is positioned there, we will of course also present these added values.

thomas: I would like to go straight into this again, including what we just said, regarding added value and optimization of the systems and so on and so forth. I'll put it this way: If, of course, you only orchestrate the AGVs and forklifts, etc., on the one hand, that's one thing, but I still have the human influence factor in this overall structure of warehouse or production. You said earlier that you plan an hour ahead or even ten minutes ahead. But now humans get into this whole game and do something that doesn't actually fit into the simulation or even the emulation. For example, the person suddenly moves a pallet by half a meter or the person says: Okay, I prefer the job. That's when this structure actually collapses again, or is everything already covered in this complexity?

Wolfgang Hackenberg: So the thing is, our system isn't designed for that. This means that humans can intervene, but it is not designed for people to prioritize the entire time around it, but there are desired delivery times, desired points and we calculate new solutions thousands of times per second. Think of it this way: A supplier arrives too late, a system fails and an AGV fails. Something is happening and we have already calculated a new solution.

Thomas: Yes, okay.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: It's all in there already.

thomas: That is amazing.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Of course, there are situations when a shelf falls over and three roads are closed, then there's not much you can do, that's obvious and that's when people have to answer. We certainly don't want to completely remove people, but the idea is that's a bit of the thing. When people have to find solutions in this complexity, they only find a valid solution because the computing power between our two ears is simply limited for all of us. We don't want valid solutions based on experience. We want optimal solutions, every second. That is our starting point.

Jens: That is an exciting starting point. Peter, can you talk a little bit out of the sewing box? What kind of benefits did you see in there right away? And which have also occurred? Can you confirm or add a few of them?

Peter Neuling: Yes, I'll start somewhere else: First I can confirm that. The motivation behind our company was that we wanted to free ourselves to a certain extent from dependence on AGV manufacturers. It's the case today — Wolfgang has already said that — if I have a manufacturer today, I actually have to use the same manufacturer again, because two control systems next to each other and two different vehicles on a route simply don't work. The vehicles do not recognize each other and this will certainly lead to obstructions again and again. It doesn't have to be an accident right away, but the vehicles face each other and simply don't move anymore because they don't know anything about each other. At some point, the AGV manufacturer, who is at some location, dictates the price to us, and of course we don't want that either. That was part of the motivation. Then our first project also showed what we had done that there were situations with a degree of automation that simply could no longer be handled automatically because there were simply too many AGVs on the road. Thanks to dynamic route guidance and the functionalities that we achieve the optimum through these many calculated steps that we get per second, we were able to regulate the traffic flow in the hall down to such an extent that we could not have driven a hall where we would not have been able to drive with AGVs in the first simulation, we were able to do it after all. So that is really a valuable point for us.

Jens: It's very, very exciting.

Peter Neuling: And of course the whole thing pays off for us too. Of course, less movement also means a few fewer AGVs in the end. Of course, this also flushes money back into the cash register in order to buy a good control system.

Jens: It's really hard for me to imagine right now. But what was the reason that the optimization solved why a non-navigable area suddenly became navigable?

Peter Neuling: First of all, very blunt, the number of AGVs, because there were just so many. We have our plants and some of them are already quite old and were not built for automatic transport. The roads may be a bit narrower there. Pedestrians are sometimes on the move. You also have to factor in the fact that the roads are narrow, etc. We also have many intersections. At an intersection, when AGVs come from three sides, then of course I always have disabilities somewhere. There are also standards that say that if the vehicle has stopped, it must first wait two seconds, then it must ring, then it must light up, then it must drive slowly and only then can it start correctly again. Of course, that hinders everything for us. But if I then have a control system that is able not to bring the vehicle to a standstill but to let it drive very slowly, I save myself those few seconds of time where the vehicle otherwise has to be parked, because the standard requires this today. We can avoid all of this because the appropriate intelligence is in it, and that's why it actually helps us.

Jens: Peter. How difficult was it then to actually integrate this system into your existing IT as well as into your existing hardware landscape? Is it something where you need someone or function such as Group IT with a lot of know-how, a lot of process and IT understanding, or does it work so simply that you could also say: Any small or medium-sized company could also adapt and apply this for themselves.

Peter Neuling: Now, of course, we have the approach with us, we want to use it across the Group and our move is accordingly to also move into a cloud solution. We are traveling together with one of the well-known cloud providers and are building the so-called digital production platform there. This system then runs on it and so we can easily make it available to the locations. Wolfgang may be able to say something here again about what they have planned for themselves. There are also plans to offer every company as big as ours without having to host it yourself.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Exactly, maybe I'll jump in because that's really important right now. At SYNAOS, we are really adapting to customer needs. Today it is yes, I said it, we come from the OEM sector. These are very large companies that often have very large fleets and which, as I said just now, have the skills to implement something like this. That there may be a cloud at Volkswagen now too, the other might also have to install something at the location again. But the development that we are seeing is clear that we are bringing the system into a cloud environment in order to also have these scaling options and this computing power. We also want to offer this to smaller customers via Software as a Service. So it is the solution that we have. It is just as effective or has many advantages even for small customers and not just for large customers. We are in the process of expanding this step by step.

Thomas: I also find this keyword, that you bring different manufacturers, different AGVs together, very, very exciting. In the logistics world or in a warehouse world, we also see it time and again that it is incredibly difficult to bring different manufacturers, including conveyor technology manufacturers, together and to coordinate them with each other. So there is always a game of ping pong without end. If you've done that with SYNAOS, that's of course a huge advantage. And that's where I'm going to be interested again. Peter, you said earlier that you have something like 200 AGVs that he controls with it. How many different manufacturers do you actually have there that you then reconcile? I'm thinking of a fleet of 200 or 200+ AGVs, you didn't buy or buy them all at once, but they've been added over the years and you're guaranteed to have different manufacturers. But how much are we talking about there? I would be interested in that, also to get a feel for what is actually feasible?

Peter Neuling: There are actually only two at this point.

Jens: Oh, that really disappoints me now.

Peter Neuling: Well, I'll put that into perspective a bit and it's also a new project. Of course, this only works if these AGVs that we use master this VDR 5050, which is not yet that old and the existing projects very often do not master this. There are now the first manufacturers who also go so far as to rebuild existing projects, but that is not the standard. As I said, we have two and the challenge with us is that we have underride AGVs for once. They simply drive somewhere, lift something and then drive away and the other is a large tractor from a well-known German manufacturer, who have converted a company near Hanover here, automated it and then pulls up to three trailers with a towing transport. Even completely different in terms of process, completely different in size and that simply makes the appeal for us.

Jens: Wolfgang, I would like to ask you so that you work, or to make the idea work in general. Do you need at least two parties: First, the user or the customer, who is really your customer, but you also need a certain openness of the appropriate interface to the various AGV manufacturers. We already had the VDA 5050, as you have already thrown it into the room here. But it is true that there is a lot, especially in the AGV sector, robotics, where a lot of money is earned. Not at all about the initial investment or about leasing the hardware, but above all through software licenses. How does that work, or how does the interaction with hardware suppliers, with technology suppliers work? If this more or less this permanent software update and also permanent software provision is often not a very small source of income, are you running into open doors or relatively thick walls?

Wolfgang Hackenberg: I'd say that's when we come across open doors. I have to do a bit of digging into that, but there is simply a change in industry. One of our core beliefs is that there is a separation between hardware and software, i.e. hardware and hardware software, and real backend software that runs in a data center in a cloud. Of course, it's easier to develop a company for now. I have to be clear. There are a few examples. If we had also built hardware now or bought it permanently in some way, then you would have integrated it right away. But that's when you're running back to exactly this barrier that you can't optimize holistically, that you create another black box, another island. Especially that you can't do this optimum in its entirety and that is exactly what we want right now. We want to focus on these customer benefits and we have clearly decided to go for it. Based on the idea that you simply have to focus on your strengths. There are extremely many good hardware manufacturers in the industry today who have good hardware, who have very good software, but who have simply built something in the backend, i.e. in the optimization software, over 10 or 20 years, which is also okay, but what doesn't fit into this world of the future that we see now, that is now coming. I'll compare, look at the consumer sector.

Thomas: Yes, I know. You mean

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Everyone tells me Apple. Apple is really the only company that manages to be premium on the hardware and software side. But we believe that on a broad scale what has also happened in the consumer sector, namely the separation of hardware and software via platforms, interfaces, etc. There will be, and everyone must concentrate on what they can do. We are a top of class software company and that is where we have our strength.

Thomas: Still, I find it interesting. You've just said yourself that the booths have developed all their 10, 15, 20 years in this direction, of course in their limited field of vision of their products, but still still. I still imagine it difficult — that's why the question again — that people then say: Pay attention, do you prefer to make hardware, the software, we can do it much better and then everyone says, Oh yes you're right. Then I won't sell it anymore. That's right, then I'll only sell the hardware. I'm imagining it a bit too easy.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: You sometimes the very good solutions are also very simple because..

Thomas: Oh yes, I want to adapt complexity.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Yes, but of course it's not like everyone's saying that now. Yes, thank goodness. We've been waiting for you for 20 years now. But they also realize that they simply no longer have solutions. Of course, there are also hardware-independent solutions. Then plug in any AGV from another manufacturer. But our solution is actually developed independently by DNA, by default, hardware. This means traffic management — hardware independent, energy management — independent. It's a different class. And I believe what is already an issue. There are an extremely large number of manufacturers out there and they must differentiate themselves. When they come together with a very, very good baking solution, then that is also a strong offer for the customer. There are many systems that would simply do both and completely remove them from the market. Let's say let's say the whole localization of a cake of income that such a manufacturer has with start-up, maintenance, hardware, hardware-related software. We'll leave it all to you. In addition, we always offer truly premium links to our ecosystem, to our operating system, where this can create additional added value for the customer, for example by going on predictive maintenance and being able to offer an additional service and so on. So this is already an offer that many companies find really interesting. We are asked by companies whether they cannot discontinue their software and can enter into any license agreements with us on a permanent basis. I have to say that there is real movement in the market.

Thomas: Do you also see a trend towards this becoming more and more separate from each other? So hardware and software solution?

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Yes, sorry, this is an absolute trend for me and integrated systems will certainly survive somewhere. These big manufacturers, which are more of a black box, are partially fenced off. Of course, there will be many systems, but there will be a broad range of them. I mean, we have 80 men and they make software. Many companies have 30 men and they mix up projects, software, everything. It's easy, it's a development, you just won't roll it out. And now this deployment, this delivery to customers, is made much easier by this platform, as Peter has just said. There is a really big wave going on there.

Thomas: Above all, I'm thinking about the complexity itself, which we've been talking about here for almost half an hour now. I've been asking myself the question for a long time: What kind of computing power do I actually need there? You also mentioned cloud solutions and so on. I think that you also have to use appropriate know-how. I'll say, even a hardware manufacturer who, on the one hand, has his know-how somewhere in terms of conveyor technology or even AGVs and so on. Of course, he would then also have to have the appropriate know-how on the software side or even on this computing power side. So I would be interested again, especially when it comes to this computing power, do I actually need anything as an end user? Do I have to set up a cellar full of servers or something? Or does it all run over any cloud? There was also the keyword software as a service earlier.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: I would solve this whole issue of “Do I have enough computing power”, the issue is solved for me today. When you consider that a cell phone has more processing power than a lunar module used to. So the topic is no longer relevant now.

Thomas: *Laughter*

Wolfgang Hackenberg: The question is, of course, so how can you integrate that, how can you integrate that? That is definitely a legitimate question and there are big companies there, as we just heard from Peter from Volkswagen. They have their own cloud environments, they have their own online data centers, you can bring that in.

Jens: If I can just slide in there for a minute. There are these big companies that have it all. But there are also medium-sized companies or even smaller, smaller medium-sized companies that may not have this and who may then shy away from it and say: No, I must have server farms and back and forth.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: No one needs to buy server farms. That is exactly the development that I have already described. We also develop offers, both in terms of pricing models, but also in terms of technology, so that we can really offer a SaaS. That we can say: You can really run this from a central cloud that we provide, that you buy somewhere. And that's also really attractive for smaller manufacturers. You don't need 200 vehicles to have that, but if you have five vehicles from one and five vehicles from the other and then three forklifts, then it can be worthwhile. Then this might be the right thing for you.

Jens: I also believe that is an issue. But it is still good that we bring it up, that we also agree in our group, because it is something where, if you don't like that, you might get involved in the topic, perhaps put off because you overestimate the complexity of it. Based on historical experience, I'll name it.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Please plug it back in because that is very important to me. We think from the customer's point of view, our focus is to make things as easy as possible for the customer. The customer should have no expenses, any server farms. I'll say the word I have to go shopping, but I should be able to book this service to him. The customer should want to be able to operate all this software easily. This means that we are currently developing standard interfaces towards WMS, towards EAP software. That it is easy. We calculate the optimal solution in this system, but the customer can also intervene there himself and make changes. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is now prioritizing any orders by area, but he can also adjust layouts, etc. We believe it is really a system where the customer himself can interact with very, much better. That is why we have invested an incredible amount in the user experience, in ease of use, in new interfaces. Why does new software that runs in industry always have to look as if it were running in industry?

Thomas: Definitely! That's so crazy when I think about what some WMS interfaces still look like, like Windows NT, for example. It's a complete disaster. I also don't understand why that always, you almost assume it. It has to look as boring as possible and as annoying as it is in any way. But I think it's really good.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: They're just not getting anywhere. It's easy because it's not set up from the backend. Then you have to completely reset the software and a double-digit million sum will flow in. Did you develop such a thing. Who is doing that today?

thomas: Yes, you just have to. I think I'd like to say it again..

Wolfgang Hackenberg: Better than before.

Thomas: No, I would like to throw another 5 euros in the phrase pig and say: If you arrive too late, life will punish you. Wolfgang, maybe you could go a bit closer into enriching the whole topic related to hardware. Do you have special partners there and who are your hardware partners, for example, or how does the whole topic work in this regard?

Wolfgang Hackenberg: I briefly discussed this separation of hardware and software earlier. Of course, our approach is based on finding strong hardware partners. Peter has already said that there is a movement there. I believe that more and more companies are focusing on this, including this new VDA 5050 interface, which simply allows this interface between backend, software and hardware. We already have some very strong partners with whom we work together. This is MLR Systems, for example, that is the Tünkers, that is KUKA, that is Linde Material Handling, both for AGVs and for forklift trucks that use Götting on load trains, for example in Hanover. I can say here today that we are also now publishing a very, very strong further partnership, namely with SEW Eurodrive from Bruchsal, one of the leading providers of drive conveyor technology, but also industrial automation. They have really great vehicles, a strong software stack and with whom we want to create a premium offer for our customers. Truly turnkey solutions from a single source, hardware, software and project management, are another step. We are also talking to many other companies that are interested in the partnership. And I believe that this strong ecosystem that we want to build there, with other strong partners such as SEW. It grows and grows and we have more inquiries than we can satisfy.

Thomas: I would like to talk about the special constellation again in this round. And I would be interested again, especially a bit now that we've talked about the benefits in general. Roughly speaking, I would be interested again in your collaboration between Peter and Wolfgang on the project, which was also more or less created together. What were the lessons learned that you learned from this? What worked very well? But what else may not have worked out so well? Where, Wolfgang, did you learn lessons again about what you would do better next time? How did that go down in general?

Peter Neuling: That would be a big project that we are just about to really start. It's still hard to say, of course, but so I can't give the right answer at all. We have certainly underestimated one or the other when we said that such a layout in the hall is not that difficult. But somehow, of course, we also realized that an AGV is simply not an AGV, but now we had to find a solution somehow, where you don't have a control center or not a network in the hall, but have to set up a network in the hall for every type of AGV. We certainly underestimated this as well as various functionalities. We are of course involved in cooperation with AGV manufacturers. They travel very differently. You can tell that there are some who are very open to the topic of a standard interface. However, some still view this with a great deal of suspicion, because they also make money from future transactions when we then want to change a card. In the past, we absolutely had to hire an AGV manufacturer to make these changes. Of course, we no longer want that in the future, because they are hoping for significant amounts in some cases. We say that we would actually like to save the money too. That is of course a solution or an issue for us. These are all things, challenges. We simply have to look again at how we deal with this in the future. As I said, the manufacturers also have their very own view of things and also very, very different know-how. Some are very cooperative there, some simply find it much more difficult.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: But if we look at these projects now. Volkswagen is now a partner or a customer that we won over very early on. Of course, now with a group of companies on a very large scale and there is already a very close exchange. Peter and his team are also regularly present in these voting rounds and we coordinate which areas are important for him now and which are not important. That is exactly the, I say, this new world that we also have. We are not standing still and saying that the system is now fully developed, now it is being rolled out, but we are continuing to develop. In every sprint, in every two weeks, we develop this a bit further. That's when we listen to what our customers need. Now our first e-commerce customer has different requirements than an OEM from the automotive industry. We build in the formulas piece by piece and thus continue to build this operating system. You should, of course it's because card formats aren't good and updates aren't good, etc. These are all things you learn. But overall, I think the collaboration is very, very good.

Thomas: I find it in general, to sum it up again. In general, it is exciting how simple this system actually appears when you talk about it, but how much complexity is transported, processed and also converted into something proactive and something good. I find it very exciting. I also find it very interesting. In the end, we have what lessons you've learned there are struggling with. Somewhere on the one hand, we're talking about hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of algorithms that we calculate. In the end, one thing where you were a bit snappy was still a bit good.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: You've described it really well. Now, of course, you still have the project in there, but that's exactly the idea behind it. You need a system that is simple in terms of interfaces, easy to operate and the entire complexity is simply under the hood, is also processed by the system to a certain extent and used optimally.

Thomas: Yes, that's the way it should be.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: That's the way it must be. Today, there are often interfaces and people are simply exposed to complexity without restraint. After all, that is what leads to excessive demands.

Thomas: In particular, there is no point in depicting this complexity in hardware, for example, that you always have some very blatant special AGVs for every single mini step. The complexity must be as good as possible — as you once described — when separating hardware from software, actually the complexity and flexibility must be provided via software. That must be the future step. What you describe at SYNAOS is exactly what the right approach is.

Peter Neuling: Which is also important from our point of view as users. It's just the point. We know AGV projects today. It's always a project. This lasts a very long period of time and the future for us, i.e. from our perspective. We have a control system and simply buy AGVs on the market and the whole thing has to be so easy afterwards. I buy the AGVs, they put them in front of my door. Then I can activate them somehow and they'll run an hour later. That is where we want to go. I think that is an important step. Perhaps even for smaller companies that want to start with AGVs, this is certainly also a major obstacle. As I said, our approach is: It must be simple. Whatever is important, IT is playing an increasingly important role today. As an IT Group, we notice this. It wasn't that much of a drama in the past, people put a server under the table in the truest sense of the word. Then there was such an AGV or such an FTS course. Of course, that is far from being the case today. We have open source. We have the requirements, safety requirements that are gigantic. “Hacking” is written somewhere in a newspaper every day. These are things like that, you just have to deal with them. Of course, this is also an experience that we needed to gain.

Thomas: Yes, even what you're saying must be easy. Whatever we were talking about earlier, how can we effectively alleviate users' “fears” that they again — the word again — don't necessarily have to set up server farms somewhere, and so on. I thought it was very, very good, especially what you say, that Wolfgang thinks that from the customer and that you take the idea into account and don't just lock it in your place and say: Well, we are the great programmers here, we can do everything and we program the best things here. Afterwards, the user sits in front of it and says: Yes and what do I have to do now? Which buttons do I have to press now and so on. I find that very, very good what you say: Front front end simple, baking can hang complexity inside without end and so on. I find that very very good at this point.

Jens: Yes, I think so too. Thank you Peter again at this point for the final word, which you have just given us. That was once again very important to show: Okay, we're not talking about a castle in the air here. Yes, where a certain limited number of OEMs have the opportunity to participate in something like this, but that it is also exactly a use case for companies that may not have had the opportunity to participate in such technologies before. I think that was important again to finally take that with you. With that in mind, thank you for being our guests this time and I hope you enjoyed it as much as we did. Hopefully, you were also able to take away a bit of our questions, just as we were able to take away a bit more of your input. That's why I thank you for that.

Wolfgang Hackenberg: In any case, thank you so much!

Peter Neuling: Thank you too, it was exciting. It was interesting.

‍