## 5 Discussion  
In this paper, we have discussed in detail the material supply of the production line, which is currently performed mechanically. This causes a lot of confusion, errors, and problems in the management of the company's production capacity. Therefore, in the paper, we discuss two variants of solutions for the automation of this process. The first proposal of the material flow control procedure to the production line deals with the deployment of an autonomous mobile robot with two charging stations and the ability to handle 202 pallets per hour. The second proposal also addresses the deployment of an autonomous mobile robot to supply the production line and remove empty pallets, but with four charging stations. This ultimately also results in an increase in handling quantity to 192 pallets per day, against a requirement of 180 pallets per day. The first option is justified in addressing the potential increase in the quantity handled to the production line. In the case of gaining new customers in the market, there is the possibility of increasing this flow only by counting the number of autonomous mobile robots. Based on the analysed processes and the used options of deployment of a human and classical handling technology or robot E10, it is possible to evaluate the benefits of the proposed solution for the company in terms of cost, efficiency, and time consumption. The first option was the deployment of an employee and handling equipment, consisting of a tractor and a transport rig. After a detailed description of the supply process from the warehouse to the production line and back, we followed with a calculation of the employee's labour time to determine how long it would take the employee to perform this process to satisfy the production line's requirement of delivering eight pallets per hour. The calculation determined that one employee would take approximately 50 min to perform the process, indicating that he or she would not be able to satisfy the production line's requirement to deliver eight pallets per hour. Therefore, the company would have to deploy up to two employees and two tractor-trailers with two transport rigs per shift. Since this is a four-shift operation, the company would have to deploy up to eight employees for this process. The current state of mechanically secured transport of goods to the production line is therefore insufficient and it is necessary to solve other possibilities of handling equipment, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Circulation**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Staff**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Cost per Worker [\%/Year]** & **Number of Workers** & **Total Costs [\(\xi\)]** \\ \hline wages & 30,000 & 4 & 120,000 \\ \hline  & TOTAL & & 120,000 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Related Technology**} \\ \hline
**Circulation** & **Unit Cost [\(\xi\)]** & **Number [pcs]** & **Total Costs [\(\xi\)]** \\ \hline Tow tractor & 20,000 & 2 & 40,000 \\ Frame & 10,000 & 8 & 80,000 \\ Service costs & - & - & 6000 \\ \hline  & TOTAL & & 126,000 \\ \hline  & TOTAL SUM & & 246,000 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Cost per worker and associated equipment. if we calculate the average speed of the sweeper and transport platforms as 4.5 km/h. By detailed analysis, we found that the employee pulling the loaded pallets follows a 504 m long route to the production line (blue) and with empty pallets follows a red route with a distance of 321 m. The detailed activities of each employee on a four-shift production operation are described in Table 1. By deploying eight employees, the company would have to spend approximately EUR 120,000 per year, and by purchasing two tractors and eight transport frames, an additional EUR 120,000. The company is also counting on annual service costs of around EUR 6000. In total, the company would have to spend EUR 246,000 on the first option. This option appears to be less efficient, as well as costly and inflexible.