General planner vs. general contractor

The construction of a new warehouse or the comprehensive reorganization of an existing logistics center is a complex undertaking that requires technical, economic, and organizational expertise in equal measure. Depending on the company's objectives, resources, and risk appetite, various implementation strategies are available. These range from the best-of-breed approach, in which the company itself assumes the role of project coordinator, to assigning overall responsibility to a general partner. Two models are of particular interest here: the general planner and the general contractor. Both pursue different approaches—and both have their specific advantages and disadvantages.

The general planner – neutral, transparent, and solution-oriented

A general planner acts as a higher-level, manufacturer-independent partner who designs, coordinates, and supports the project holistically—from needs analysis and technical and structural planning to tendering and implementation. Their central requirement is neutrality in finding solutions. This means that the general planner does not favor a particular manufacturer or supplier, but selects the optimal combination of technology, processes, and infrastructure in the best interests of the customer.

The general planner assumes responsibility for the integrated planning of the entire facility – i.e., for logistics technology (e.g., racking systems, conveyor technology, automation) as well as for building planning, energy supply, and IT connectivity. Thanks to their interdisciplinary expertise, they ensure that material flow, technology, buildings, and organization are perfectly coordinated. The result is a customized, efficient, and future-proof overall concept.

Another advantage of the general planner is transparency and cost certainty during the planning phase. Since they act as the client's representative, they do not pursue their own sales interests with regard to specific systems or suppliers. They prepare tender documents based on objective criteria and compare offers neutrally. This ensures that the company gets the best price-performance mix on the market—not just the supposedly cheapest solution.

The general contractor – complete turnkey solution, but less flexible

In contrast, the general contractor (GC) offers the client a turnkey solution. They assume full responsibility for planning, procurement, construction, and commissioning—including all interface coordination. This model is particularly attractive when a company has limited internal capacity or expertise for project management and wants fast, low-risk implementation.

The general contractor bears the project risk and undertakes to deliver within a defined time and cost frame. However, this security comes at a price: the assumption of risk is usually compensated by significant cost surcharges. In addition, general contractors are often closely tied to specific technology suppliers or system providers. This means that the solution can be implemented efficiently, but is less customized and less manufacturer-neutral. The client's freedom of choice with regard to technical components, layout variants, or system architectures is therefore limited.

Decision with foresight

The choice between a general planner and a general contractor ultimately depends on the strategic priorities of the company. Those looking for a tailor-made, long-term optimized solution and who value freedom of choice, transparency, and cost clarity will benefit from a general planner. On the other hand, those who want to implement a project quickly, with low risk, and with minimal effort on their part will find the right partner in a general contractor.

ebp-consulting acts as a general planner and has already successfully implemented several projects and provided support right through to commissioning.