| CASE STUDIES |
| |
| Case Study # 1 Large multi-million dollar CPG company |
| At least FIVE major goals were accomplished by using IntellaPac Pro software. |
> Goal #1 – Have clear, concise, interactively linked specifications, BOM’s, dielines, art files, pallet patterns, SOP’s, test
 procedures, etc., that are easily maintained . |
| > Goal #2 – Have internal control by having a common repository of the above that are easily maintained and accessible
internally and to our vendors with password protection. |
| > Goal #3 – Assist in Global Integration and better communications with existing co-packers, new ABC acquisitions and
co-packers |
| > Goal #4 – Save money by consolidating label sizes, bottles, corrugated purchases, etc. |
| > Goal #5 – Streamline speed to market initiatives by having up-to-date, correct information available to all involved parties
in real-time. |
| |
| Case Study # 2 Multi-billion dollar international bottler |
| > Vendor created, fragmented specs reside with the vendors. |
| > Many items do not have specs written for them. |
| > No centralized location for dies lines. |
| > Many items do not have die lines created for them. |
| > Speed to market delayed during approval process. |
| > Vague SOP's exist for the approval of new items/changes. Specific individuals are not listed as the responsible parties.
Very little control over the process. |
| > Packaging projects are slowed by not having the proper information at hand. |
| > We are leaving money on the table by not properly consolidating label sizes, corrugated, etc. |
| > No centralized location for machinery specs exists, if they exist at all. |
| > Changes in a single component that may affect multiple finished packages cannot be properly tracked. |
| > A common language, i.e., common template, does not exist for the limited number of specs that are written. |
| > Specs, BOM's, pallet patterns, revisions, etc. are not linked. |
| > No documentation of testing, if any is done at all, is kept. |
| > The machinery list and capabilities of our company owned plants and co-packers (26) in the US alone, are not in a single
location. |
| |
| Case Study # 3 Large Consumer Goods Manufacturer |
| > Marketing Department adopted a less expensive packaging material for many of the company’s 200 Items. Specification
changes were made and new materials brought in and used. A year later it was learned that over 100 items were
overlooked in the change over, resulting in excess packaging costs of $300,000. |
| |
| Case Study # 4 Large Food Company |
| > Making over 500 items at a single facility they wanted to reduce the number of items and vendors, but lacked updated
documentation for all the items. The review process consumed over a year, delaying an annual savings in excess of
$1,000,000. |
| |
| Case Study # 5 Large agricultural commodity processor |
| > Encounter an increasing difficulty in meeting customers’ size specifications. Management suspected the problem was due,
in part to excessive concentration in a limited range of finished product types. With over 1,000 items, it took several
months to find the cause of the problem. |
| |
