The conversation happened six months too late. A client called Sylvia Courtney, excited about a new technology he’d discovered: automated forks that could pick up twenty pots at a time and move them through the facility. It would transform their operation.
There was just one problem: the greenhouse was already built.
“It would have been a complete redesign of everything that we had already done,” recalled Courtney, VP of Design at LLK. “The time to have made this decision was six months ago. Because now it would be really costly to change.”
This is a pattern Courtney sees often: operators who want to add automation after the design is finalized, after construction has begun, or worse, after the facility is already operating.
The fact of the matter is that automated systems require fundamentally different space planning than traditional greenhouses. And retrofitting that space is expensive, disruptive, and sometimes impossible.
Automation Eats Space… Lots of It
The first surprise for operators planning automation is how much non-productive space these systems demand.
“We need a lot of space for the transport lines of this equipment. And that’s floor space that isn’t producing anything,” Courtney said. “And so there is a lot of pushback.”
This is understandable considering commercial operators are trained to maximize growing area. Every square foot of transport Iines is square footage that doesn’t grow plants, doesn’t generate revenue, and costs money to build and maintain.
Automated systems can’t function without it. Unlike human workers who can navigate tight spaces and improvise around obstacles, automated equipment needs clear pathways, a turning radius, and buffer zones.
“The most efficient way to make room for automation is to have transport lanes on both ends of the greenhouse, but that space that isn’t producing, and operators will at times want to push back,” Courtney said.
“But when you do that, then it means more labor because everything has to go in and out from one end.”
You’re back to choosing between space efficiency and labor efficiency, except now you’ve invested in expensive automation that can’t deliver its full value because the layout constrains it.
Buffer Zones: Planning for When Things Go Wrong
Autonomous systems promise efficiency, but they also introduce new failure modes that traditional operations don’t face.
Courtney described observing an automated cart system with a sensor line embedded in the floor: “If it stops working and it gets off the track, you don’t want it to run into something and damage it. And so, that probably means you need to have a lot of buffer area around those to prevent that from happening.”
Then there’s the traffic jam scenario: “A train of carts with the tugger was going down the aisle, and then it stopped. And now it’s blocking access into other zones because it’s right there in the middle of the corridor.”
When the system stops mid-route, you need space to work around it manually. Without adequate buffer zones and access routes, a simple technical glitch can halt your entire operation.
Courtney has personally witnessed these roadblocks in facilities that didn’t plan sufficient space for automation.
The Information Challenge
Beyond space requirements, highly automated facilities require exhaustive upfront planning that many operators aren’t prepared for.
“When you’re going highly automated, it’s a very long process, and it’s sometimes painful to get all of the information you need from the client,” Courtney said.
The level of detail required goes far beyond traditional greenhouse design: “You need to document almost every single process, every single step: how long, how many people, what size.”
Container dimensions, worker positions, process sequences, time studies… everything needs to be specified because the automation provider needs to engineer systems around exact parameters. All cultivation processes need to be carefully considered to avoid bottlenecks.
“Getting all of that information to get a good design is sometimes challenging,” Courtney noted.
Line workers might know these answers better than managers: “Sometimes maybe the people you’re dealing with don’t know the answer because they’re in management, they’re not the ones doing the actual work.”
When that’s the case, “You kind of have to rely on the automation provider to give some recommendations, look at some patterns, and adjust from there.”
In many cases, you’re asking clients to specify workflows they’ve never actually executed, for a system they’ve never operated, in a facility that doesn’t exist yet.
The Hidden Labor Requirement
Automation doesn’t eliminate labor, it shifts it. And one critical role many operators overlook is maintenance.
“In some of these automated systems, you need to have a mechanic on site full-time, available to take care of anything that gets out of whack,” Courtney warned.
When something breaks in a traditional operation, workers adjust. They carry flats instead of using carts. They work around the broken bench roller. Operations continue, even if less efficiently.
Automated systems don’t have that flexibility: “Because then, if the whole system falls apart, if the motor quits and things are not moving the way they’re supposed to… it can get challenging to have to go in there manually and do some of those things.”
The system works beautifully when everything functions correctly. When it doesn’t, you need expertise on-site to restore functionality quickly, or your entire operation can stop.
While growers can use techniques to slow down or speed up the growth of their crops, plants don’t have a pause button and are on a schedule from propagation to finish. This makes it particularly important to fix automation issues quickly and get production back on track.
Rails, Carts, and Getting the Details Right
Even semi-automated systems require precise planning. Many production facilities use carts that run on heated rails embedded in the floor, a system that sounds simple but demands exact specifications.
“In a lot of production, you have hot water heat in rails that are on the floor, and harvesting carts or working carts go down those rails,” Courtney explained.
“It’s important you get the right information about the cart that you’re using to design for that specific cart because they could be different.”
Get the rail spacing wrong by even a few inches, and your carts won’t fit. Order carts before finalizing the rail design, and you might discover they’re incompatible with your greenhouse layout.
The Point of No Return
Courtney’s client, who wanted to switch to automated forks mid-project, illustrates a design pitfall: there’s a point beyond which automation decisions become prohibitively expensive to change.
For that client, “it was already built, and it would have been a huge modification.”
In addition to the financial cost, time delays, construction disruption, and operational setbacks all factor into the real price of changing course late.
Make the Decision Early
Not every facility should automate. But if you are thinking of automating, the decision needs to happen during initial planning: not after design, not after construction begins, and definitely not after you’re operational.
“The challenge is doing a retrofit. You need to allow adequate space if you’re going to automate,” Courtney emphasized.
If you’re even considering future automation, build in the space now: transport lanes, buffer zones, adequate turning radii. The extra space costs less upfront than retrofitting later, even if you never automate.
And if you’re committed to the idea of automating? “Know that automation takes a little bit more planning.”
Much more planning, actually. But that investment in planning — made early in the process — is what separates automated systems that transform operations from expensive disappointments that don’t deliver on their promised efficiency.
Sylvia Courtney is VP of Design at LLK, where she helps operators plan facilities that can accommodate current operations and future technology upgrades.
