The Problem with Distribution Package Testing

Imagine a new product introduction has worked through various packaging reviews, approval steps, and has even passed the defined distribution test from the International Safe Transit Association (ISTA). The product and packaging work their way through stage-gate approvals, are commercialized, and launched into the market. After a period in the market, the dreaded notification comes that the organization is seeing product damages — either through a spike in the signal or an increasing trendline. But the packaging system had passed the test protocols — so where to turn next?

The world moves fast these days. Sometimes fast is good, but other times the pace of changes can leave negative impacts. In the world of packaging engineers, this adage holds true as well. Physically fast movements in a manual handling environment can reflect on increased risk and damages related to manual handling (for example, dropped packages and shock impacts) or mechanical handling (such as a fork-truck handler with the need for speed and excessive braking, which impacts unit loads).

The speed at which supply chains evolve can also have impacts to product performance and packaging protection. If significant changes occur faster than the packaging team can respond, packaging systems may be at risk to new distribution hazards you had not previously tested for.  So even though packaging systems may have been previously tested to (and passed) an ISTA, ASTM, ISO, or even customized test protocol, that protocol may already be out of date and missing new key elements or distribution hazards based on the current supply chain network.

Related:7 Ecommerce Cold Chain Packaging Trends

The role of packaging in reducing product damages.

In the packaging space, the goal is to ensure our products can make it to consumers safe, intact and unscathed. Oftentimes packaging engineers will use common test methods from ISTA, ASTM, or others to “set the bar” or performance target to ensure that a package can successfully withstand the various rigors and hazards.

NTT Data

These tests are intended to subscribe the packaging system to a defined “challenge” — vibration, compression, shock impacts, and atmospheric pressure, for example — to put it through a replication or simulation of what the package would commonly see when shipped to the end customer or consumer.  This testing approach can be true to both primary packaging systems, as well as unit-load shipments.

But what happens if you’ve passed previous testing, but are still seeing increased damages?

In some instances, legacy package testing standards do not evolve at the same pace that supply chains change.  That overlay of supply chain-based performance thresholds compared to actual test challenges may leave gaps in testing that can also cause increased damage or spikes in claims or returns.

Related:New Box Sealing Tape Is Curbside Recyclable

Here are a few common shifts in supply chains that may trigger new events outside of current test protocol:

• New distribution or delivery channels

• New sales channels

• New warehouse/ fulfillment buildings or locations in play

• Additional handling introduced (manual or automated)

• Longer distances traveled

• New geographies, countries

• New retailer environment

• Adjustments in automation and robotics

Tips to improve packaging and minimize product damages.

Here are six tips for what you can do to make sure your testing aptly reflects real-world experiences of your packaging.

1. Supply chain mapping: Revisit product touchpoints.

Begin by understanding and mapping the end-to-end flow of your specific supply chain, including nodes, buildings, and facilities from manufacturing all the way through to the consumer. Get out to the field and observe how products move and are handled within each facility. Track and quantify any subsequent hazards the products may encounter along the journey.

It’s common to encounter a range of handling events with varied levels of intensity. These events should be reviewed separately as part of a thorough root cause analysis that may lead to a single event, or a cascading series of events, that all contribute to the degradation of packaging performance.

2. Determine gaps.

The key takeaway from this step is to determine “what are we missing?”.  By aligning the distribution hazards identified and comparing against existing test protocols, potential gaps in test elements, intensity levels, or frequency may begin to present themselves. Having this baseline data can help lay the foundation for fact-based approaches to revisit testing parameters and start down the path for solutions and remediation. Some updates in supply-chain nodes or distribution may not always get communicated back to the packaging engineering teams to be informed or even consulted.

Here are a few instances where packaging teams were the last to know of shifts in the supply chain, and had to react swiftly to address significant increases in damage and waste:

• Food processor closed its west coast manufacturing location and sent shipments from the Midwest to the west coast over high altitude. The company instantly saw an increase in burst seals and spoilage without properly testing their packaging for this shift in supply chain modes.

• Retailer modified a distribution channel to shift from full pallets (unit loads) to case level movements, including manual handling of a conveyable product. The packaging was not designed to withstand the bumps and bruises from manual handling and observed a significant uptick in damages.

• Manufacturer shifted manufacturing assembly from US to Mexico. The combination of product fragility, a new shipping lane, and longer transit time all resulted in increased damages. New vibration data had to be gathered, test protocols updated, and packaging systems redesigned.

3. Perform fragility testing.

If product fragility testing had not been conducted in the new product introduction stage, it may be time to revisit this key step to truly determine product robustness — or points of weakness or fragility. In some cases, these elements may be addressed with product design modifications. Alternatively, adjustments to packaging, equipment settings, or processes may need to be evaluated to solve for areas of risk.

4. Consider gathering the data.

Are the supply chain and handling methods so unique that they paint outside the lines of the prescribed ISTA or ASTM protocol intensities? Should there be considerations for capturing distribution data — such as vibration, shock impacts, compression, clamp handling, temperature, and humidity — to enable the packaging engineering team to update and adapt the test protocol to better align to the environment? These are some of the factors that should be considered as early stage due diligence before embarking on this field study.

5. Revise the distribution test protocol.

After there is a better understanding of the supply chain flow, handling events, and intensities, updates to test methods or protocols can be introduced to customize and refine testing parameters. Any changes in distribution test protocol should be validated through additional performance testing to ensure adequate coverage.

A key nuance at this stage is to make adjustments that align to the most major or severe gaps. In other words, not every single touch or hazard within distribution needs to be factored into the test protocol. Low frequency occurrences should be considered but not necessarily a key driver.

6. Reset requirements and redesign packaging systems.

With new parameters in place, there is better definition of performance requirements and test level intensities. This clarity can provide packaging engineers better insights on addressing specific challenges to protect their specific product for their organization’s supply chain dynamics. Various technical levers can then be applied to redesign legacy packaging systems through material selection, structural design, and new technologies. Some supply-chain mapping studies may lead to broader business case discussions around potential concessions, new equipment and technologies, or updated processes or standard operating procedures that can reduce overall risk.

1933bkk / iStock via Getty Images Plus

Your payoff is success and satisfaction.

Performance testing on both primary packaging and unit-load systems are foundational activities for introducing a new product into the market. Gaps in performance testing vs. actual events may leave products exposed to increased damage and waste, or even excessive overpackaging to compensate for hazards that do not actually exist. Having a sound understanding of an organization’s end-to-end supply chain flow can arm packaging teams with better visibility into performance thresholds, and therefore test protocol enhancements to ensure product success and consumer satisfaction.