What the smallest documented RTLS case actually looked like
A 15,000 sqm logistic-center warehouse ran Logistics Optimization with RTLS. The documented numbers are straightforward: €3,500 invested, €11,000 saved in OPEX in year one. The practical outcome was real-time visibility across an L-shaped layout plus clearer cross-shift workload balancing.
That is the floor for operational visibility. Not a full plant digital twin, not a multi-site rollout. Just enough live position data on the assets that move material to stop guessing where the bottlenecks sit between shifts.
The cost side stays low when the footprint is modest
€3,500 is the figure that appears for this warehouse. Twinzo prices by data points rather than by named users, so the licence cost scales with the number of tracked positions instead of headcount. Licences run for one year and renew automatically unless dropped. A one-month free trial is available before any commitment.
Deployment for this scale of facility typically lands between one and three months. That window covers sensor placement, tagging, calibration, and the first live map. Nothing in the case suggests the warehouse needed a full CAD rebuild or extensive BIM cleanup before the RTLS layer could start delivering positions.
Where the €11,000 in year-one OPEX reduction came from
The savings are attributed to real-time visibility and the resulting ability to balance work across shifts more evenly. In an L-shaped warehouse the blind spots are geometric: one leg of the building can look busy while the other sits idle, and paper or radio updates lag behind the actual movement of forklifts and materials.
Once positions update live, supervisors can see the imbalance as it forms rather than after the shift ends. Spaghetti diagrams and shift analytics built from the same position stream show repeated empty runs or dwell clusters that were previously invisible. The case does not claim fleet reductions or FTE cuts at this scale; the measured benefit is the OPEX line item tied to better balancing.
Deciding whether this minimal scale fits your operation
If the current problem is shift-to-shift workload drift or lost time searching for material in a mid-sized layout, the 15,000 sqm example shows the entry cost and the corresponding first-year return. Larger automotive plants in the same documentation set invested €81,000 or €120,000 and recorded higher absolute savings, but those sites started with bigger fleets and more complex flows.
The decision point is therefore narrow: does the warehouse already lose enough OPEX to idle movement and uneven shifts that €3,500 of RTLS coverage would surface the pattern? The case supplies one concrete answer for one L-shaped logistic center. Matching the same numbers requires matching the same starting conditions—modest footprint, existing visibility gaps, and willingness to act on the live map once it is running.