Cutter & Buck, Kardex, and AutoStore: Why the Second Automated Warehouse May Matter More Than the First

Warehouse automation announcements tend to celebrate the beginning. A new distribution center opens. Robots arrive. An automated storage and retrieval system goes live. Executives talk about throughput, labor savings, and future growth. But perhaps the more revealing warehouse automation story begins several years later, when a company decides whether to do it again. That is what makes the latest development involving Cutter & Buck, Kardex, and AutoStore particularly interesting.

Cutter & Buck, the apparel company, recently opened a new distribution center in Grand Prairie, Texas, featuring its second AutoStore goods-to-person system implemented by Kardex. The system includes 50,502 storage bins, 32 R5 Pro robots, and 13 ports, with Kardex FulfillX warehouse execution software coordinating the operation. It is designed for 1,256 bin presentations per hour, with simulation results averaging 1,284.

Those numbers are interesting. But the more important number may be two. This is not Cutter & Buck’s first attempt at warehouse automation. And that changes the story.

The First Warehouse Was the Experiment

Cutter & Buck began its earlier automation journey at its Renton, Washington, distribution center, where a Kardex-deployed AutoStore system went live in July 2023 with more than 34,000 bins and 54 robots. As the operation grew, the company later added another 9,962 storage bins along with additional ports and infrastructure. That evolution matters because the Texas facility was not designed simply by copying Renton.

According to Kardex, the companies used several years of operating experience, performance data, and lessons from the first deployment to shape the new distribution center around Cutter & Buck’s changing fulfillment requirements. This is where the story becomes much more useful for warehouse executives. There is an enormous difference between asking, “Should we automate?” and asking, “Knowing what we know after three years of automation, how should we automate the next building?” The second question may tell us far more about automation maturity.

What Happened After the Robots Arrived?

The publicly reported results from the original Renton deployment provide important context. In its case study, Kardex reports that Cutter & Buck reduced peak-season labor requirements by 60%, with 12 associates handling workloads that previously required 30. The company also reports that online orders can move from order to shipment in as little as 10 minutes.

Those are precisely the kinds of metrics automation buyers should be looking for. A warehouse can look highly automated without necessarily being highly productive. The business case ultimately depends on what happens to labor requirements, order cycle time, accuracy, capacity, service levels, and cost per order. That is especially important for Cutter & Buck because its fulfillment profile involves more than simply retrieving apparel from storage.

Nearly half of picking activity at the Renton operation supports embroidery workflows, according to the Kardex case study. That means products have to flow not just from storage to shipping, but through value-added customization processes as well. The Texas facility reflects that complexity. Its conveyor system connects AutoStore output with embroidery, order routing, Print & Apply, and shipping processes. In other words, the interesting technology story is no longer simply automated storage. It is automated flow.

The Second Warehouse Is the Real Vote of Confidence

Warehouse automation vendors understandably highlight initial customer wins. From an analyst perspective, however, repeat investment can be more revealing. A first implementation is based largely on expectations: projected throughput, anticipated labor savings, simulations, reference customers, and a calculated ROI. A second investment can be based on something much more valuable: the customer’s own operating data.

Cutter & Buck had several years to see how its first AutoStore deployment performed, expand that system as SKU requirements increased, identify where workflows could be improved, and then decide how to approach its next distribution center. It chose automation again. That does not mean every warehouse operator should reach the same conclusion. But it does suggest an important way customers should evaluate suppliers. Do not look only at how many new customers a technology provider wins. Look at how many existing customers expand, add robots or ports, increase storage capacity, or deploy the technology in another building. Those decisions occur after the sales presentation is over.

Modular Automation Changes the Economics

There is another important aspect of the Cutter & Buck example: scalability. At Grand Prairie, the number of robots and ports can be expanded independently as demand changes. That matters because one of the hardest parts of warehouse automation investment is forecasting the future.

Volumes change. SKU counts increase. Customer expectations shift. Peak seasons become more pronounced. A system designed perfectly for today’s demand may be poorly sized five years from now. Modular systems potentially give operators another way to think about ROI. Instead of asking whether they can perfectly forecast requirements over the entire investment horizon, they can ask whether the underlying automation architecture gives them enough room to respond when that forecast inevitably changes.

Cutter & Buck’s Renton facility illustrates that point particularly well. The original system was not frozen in its 2023 configuration. It subsequently expanded by nearly 10,000 additional bins as the business required more capacity. That ability to expand deserves more attention in automation business cases.

Stop Asking Only About Day-One Throughput

The warehouse automation market often focuses heavily on commissioning and initial throughput. Those metrics matter. But mature automation decisions should examine a longer timeline. What happened after year one?

Did the operation require more people than anticipated? What happened during peak? Could the system absorb additional SKUs? How expensive was maintenance? Could throughput be expanded without redesigning the facility? And most importantly, when the company needed another distribution center, did management choose the technology again? Research suggests these questions remain relevant. The 2026 Intralogistics Robotics Study surveyed 166 warehouse, distribution, and manufacturing professionals involved in robotic automation decisions. While 74% of organizations already deploying robots said they achieved their business goals, the study found a more complicated picture around cost and time to value.

That is an important distinction. Successful automation is not simply automation that works. It is automation capable of continuing to make economic sense as the operation changes.

Takeaway

The most interesting part of the Cutter & Buck, Kardex, and AutoStore story is not 32 robots or 50,502 bins. It is repeatability. Cutter & Buck implemented warehouse automation, operated it for several years, expanded it, learned from it, and then used those lessons to build another automated distribution operation. For companies evaluating AS/RS and goods-to-person technologies, that provides a useful lesson. Don’t just ask a supplier to show you its newest installation. Ask to see the customer that came back for the second one. That may be one of the clearest indicators that warehouse automation has moved from an impressive technology project to a sustainable operating strategy.