ChloeAdams0135 · 24 Feb 2025, 05:49 UTC
It deserves another packaging review first, because identical outside dimensions don't establish identical support requirements. Can your carton supplier show where the packed load now bears on the base?
11 pointsThey sent a section showing the load nearer one long edge. Our pallet plan was made from the old carton sample, thanks for pointing out that distinction.
5 pointsPut that section beside both layer orientations. You want packaging to assess the actual support below the loaded edge, not just whether the boxes fit within the pallet boundary.
18 pointsHas anyone told the tooling supplier the contents moved? Our gripper trial once used a beautifully balanced dummy while the real package pulled to one side. Same box, different handling behaviour. Or rather, the box was the only thing that matched.
1 pointsThat belongs in the same review. A packed sample will give the tooling team more useful evidence than the external carton drawing alone.
20 pointsCan I ask whether old and new cartons will both be in production during the changeover?
16 pointsIf they will, identify them separately in the trial. Mixing the results would make it hard to know which package your eventual approval covers.
21 pointsWe have some old stock left. Packing says the carton code changes, so I've asked them to keep both versions labelled for the comparison.
1 pointsThe model needs the agreed tool envelope and occupied neighbouring positions too. A revised packing pattern can improve support while making the last release impossible. Rectangles have enviably small grippers.
13 pointsTool supplier has a side-grip concept. Their first model had the existing layer pattern only; they are waiting for packaging's revised candidate before checking the placement order.
16 pointsCheck both proposed carton versions against that concept. A code on the box helps identification; it does not by itself establish one tool setup will handle both.
13 pointsYou could record each candidate as a carton revision, pallet pattern and tool configuration together. Then the trial result has a precise home instead of being filed under palletising works.
6 pointsPackaging returned two candidates. One keeps the new loaded edge supported but leaves a narrow tool gap. The other uses fewer cartons per layer. Both still need assessment.
6 pointsFewer cartons may be the less expensive process once interventions are counted. Are you comparing complete pallet output, including resets and changeover, or just the seconds between placements? That's where our neatest layout lost its appeal.
11 pointsWe had only compared placement count. I've asked our planner for the dispatch requirement so we can judge whether the lower-count pattern would actually cause a problem.
-1 pointsWhat happens to the remaining old cartons if the new setup cannot handle both versions?
6 pointsWorth deciding before trial stock gets consumed. A temporary manual route may be practical, but it needs agreeing rather than becoming an unplanned packing task.
14 pointsPlanner says old stock can finish on the current manual route. The lower-count candidate meets our daily volume on paper, so we are taking that into the combined packaging and tooling trial.
6 pointsInclude normal variation in the new packed cartons, especially the base condition and insert orientation. You want that candidate checked against the stock you will receive routinely.
23 pointsSamples selected from normal packing are ready. Tooling hasn't been ordered. I was treating fewer cartons as failure tbh, but it may simply suit what we actually ship.
2 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .