Standardisation may sound boring, but it is the key to getting a handle on your packaging process. Many companies waste time and money unnecessarily due to inconsistencies in packaging and working methods. Discover how smart standardisation leads to lower costs, fewer errors and a more efficient supply chain.
Summary of this article
In many industrial organisations, packaging management appears, at first glance, to be well organised. Products are packaged, orders are dispatched and problems seem to be few and far between. There are often agreements, work instructions or ‘that’s how we do things here’ practices in place.
But appearances can be deceiving.
When you look more closely, a different picture often emerges. Packaging choices turn out to vary from one employee to another, from one product to another, or even from one moment to the next. What makes sense to one person is done slightly differently by another. Not out of a lack of willingness, but because the underlying framework is missing.
The result?
A process that appears stable, but in reality remains dependent on individual interpretation.
This is reflected, for example, in:
As long as this isn’t made explicit, it feels as though everything is under control.
Many organisations have documentation lying around somewhere: instructions, guidelines or previous decisions. But the question is not whether they exist; the question is whether they actually provide guidance.
Are they understood?
Are they applied consistently?
And perhaps even more importantly: is it clear why they exist?
Without that last point, agreements remain vulnerable. They are circumvented as soon as practical circumstances demand it.
This is where the tension arises that causes many organisations to get bogged down. On the one hand, there is a need for flexibility: adapting quickly, acting pragmatically, and resolving whatever issues arise. On the other hand, there is a need for predictability: maintaining control over quality, costs and risks.
Without clear standardisation, flexibility can quickly turn into arbitrariness. And arbitrariness is difficult to manage.
The question, therefore, is not whether you have your packaging ‘sorted’, but to what extent you actually have it under control.
The impact of variation in packaging is rarely made immediately apparent. Problems are often resolved before they escalate. A damaged product is repackaged. Extra handling is seen as part of the process. Time lost gets lost in the day-to-day operations. But that is precisely where the problem lies.
When packaging choices aren’t standardised, the consequences spread throughout the entire supply chain. Not as one major incident, but as a series of small deviations that, taken together, have a structural impact.
Consider:
These costs are rarely directly linked to packaging management. They fall under the remit of different departments and therefore slip under the radar.
In situations where packaging choices lack a clear rationale, there is a strong reliance on experience. Staff ‘know’ how things should be done, but cannot always explain or pass this on.
This seems efficient, until:
At that point, it becomes clear that knowledge is not formalised, but is scattered across individual minds. And that makes the process vulnerable.
A packaging method applied just slightly differently seems harmless. Until it leads to extra movements, reduced protection or inefficient stacking. One deviation is not a problem. Nor are ten deviations a day, not immediately.
But over time, they lead to:
And perhaps even more importantly: they make it virtually impossible to make targeted improvements.
As long as it remains unclear where and why variation arises, optimisation will continue to be based on assumptions rather than insight.
The difference between organisations that have a firm grip on their packaging process and those that continue to react to problems rarely lies in resources or people. It lies in the way packaging is approached.
Not as an operational task, but as part of the broader supply chain strategy.
Many organisations get bogged down in setting out how things should be done: work instructions, checklists and guidelines. That is an important step, but it is not enough.
True control only emerges when it is clear:
At that point, standardisation shifts from a static document to a dynamic management tool.
In mature organisations, standardisation is not a constraint, but a means of making complexity manageable. It ensures:
Here, a conscious decision is also made as to where customisation is needed and where it is not. That balance makes it possible to operate in a way that is both flexible and scalable.
Most organisations fall somewhere between a fully ad hoc approach and strategic management. But exactly where they stand often remains unclear.
And that is precisely the problem.
Without insight into their own level of maturity, improvement remains based on gut feeling. Initiatives are launched, but lack coherence. Results remain inconsistent.
To really get to grips with packaging management, more is needed than isolated optimisations. It requires a structured approach to determine:
The Industrial Packaging Maturity Model helps organisations gain clarity on these issues. Not by providing immediate solutions, but by highlighting where you stand today and where the greatest opportunities for improvement lie.
Because only when you know where the variation lies can you determine where standardisation adds value.
Erik Holleman is Marketing Manager at Faes and focuses on strengthening the company’s positioning as a 4PP partner. With his expertise in strategic marketing and the Industrial Packaging Maturity Model (IPMM), he helps companies gain insight into their packaging processes and optimize them for maximum efficiency and cost savings.
More articles by Erik HollemanGood packaging doesn’t just happen by chance. Using a tried-and-tested approach, our specialists guide you step by step from the initial idea to the finished product.
