Sonic Speakers, a manufacturer and distributor of audio speaker systems, needs some help.

Business is good, and management expects 7% growth for the next five years. But it has outgrown its current facility and is moving into a new 120,000 square foot plant and warehouse. Unfortunately, management isn't sure what's the best materials handling design for maximum product flow from raw materials through assembly and into finished goods warehousing.

That, along with a whole lot of conditions, was the challenge presented to the next generation of materials handling problem solvers—college students—by the College-Industry Council on Material Handling Education (CICMHE). Annually since 1994, CICMHE has created a mythical company with real-world materials handling problems for its National Student Material Handling Design Competition. Along with CICMHE, Modern Materials Handling is a sponsor of the competition.

Students from across the country entered this year's contest, and for the first time ever a four-way tie for first place was declared. Those four are from Montana State University, Texas A&M, University of Louisville and Virginia Tech. In addition, there were two honorable mentions from Ohio University and Penn State.

"When the judges voted, we found that all four had the same total score," says Dick Lindeke, judging chairman and an industrial engineering professor at the University of Minnesota–Duluth. "The four had such outstanding presentations that we decided all were tied for first place," he adds.

Other members of the judging panel were: Benoit Montreuil, University of Laval; Jim Noble, University of Missouri–Columbia; Kevin Gue, Naval Post Graduate School; Bob Silverman, Gross & Associates; Mike Romano, Abel Womack Integrated Handling Solutions.

Each of the teams worked within the detailed constraints set out in the CICMHE challenge. And while parts of their solutions were similar, each had an interesting twist that was all their own.

The Montana State team looked at the overall materials handling and inventory flow as a continuous process rather than analyzing specific segments one at a time. This included all steps from kitting of parts for production to assembly, final finishing and boxing of the finished product. In the end, the team went with a manual handling system that used standard racks, orderpicking and counterbalanced trucks, carts, and limited conveyor.

A fully automated kanban system that is integrated with manufacturing resource planning, bar codes and simple electronic data interchange was the choice by Texas A&M. Enterprise resource planning was recommended to coordinate data between the warehouse, transportation, yard and assembly management systems. Double-deep pallet racks, orderpicking and counterbalanced trucks, chain-driven roller conveyor were central to the design. This is the only team to recommend a pick-to-light system, specifically for finished goods order fulfillment.

At the University of Louisville, the team decided to build a handling system that could, from day one, handle the throughput projected five years out while maximizing materials flow between departments. Pallet jacks and counterbalanced lift trucks figured prominently in the design as did gravity and belt conveyors. Standard and cantilever racks were included too. This is the only team that recommended use of wireless terminals equipped with scanners to speed information flow.

Similarly, the Virginia Tech team built for maximum capacity and optimized product flow, eliminating the need for disruptive system enhancements as volumes increased. And like the other three teams, Virginia Tech went with counterbalanced lift trucks, pallet racks and conveyor. What they did differently was recommend four banks of four vertical lift modules each in the forward picking area.