Plastics and packaging: reduce cost per shipped product

01

The problem starts before the invoice

Packaging cost spans purchasing, filling, transport and damage. A cheaper box may increase shipped volume or need more protection. Compare cost per product delivered intact under the customer’s required conditions.

The question is not simply where to buy more cheaply. It is which information must come together before deciding, who can confirm the requirement and how to check the outcome after purchasing. Start with a manageable scope, retrieve existing records and make discrepancies discussable with the people who understand operations.

02

An application to develop with Kelqio

Compare approved sizes and materials including volume, cushioning and minimum orders. Validate changes in a trial before wider use.

The approach connects supplier information, catalogues, requests and orders. Each proposal should retain original references, the effective date of the terms used and the decision owner. Buyers can accept a suggestion, correct it or explain why it does not apply. That response becomes useful information for the next transaction.

Material cost and bill of materials

Break down a manufacturing cost at constant specification and identify cost items to review.

What the monitoring could look like

⊕ Explore the mockup

See details in full size↗

Material cost and bill of materials

Zoom detailsClose ×

03

What makes a comparison useful

Technical descriptions are part of purchasing data. Unit, size, material, grade and drawing version can change the meaning of a price. Reference matching must preserve these attributes and previously approved equivalences. When information is missing, show two lines for review rather than merging them into a supposed saving based on different items.

Make switching costs visible before accepting alternatives. Depending on the case, these include trials, preparation, additional freight, qualification time or stock that becomes unusable. Including them allows procurement, production and quality teams to discuss the same trade-off rather than comparing unrelated estimates.

04

Bring the right data together

Packaging specifications, dimensions, order volumes, damage rates and transport pricing.

First, check a few lines from end to end. Do references match across sources? Do amounts use the same unit and period? Are terms still valid? File imports can support this initial review. More automated connections follow once matching is understood and responsibilities are assigned.

Data freshness needs to stay visible. Old stock records, expired rate cards or unapproved documents can make a proposal unusable. Signal missing information and retain the last reliable state rather than presenting an apparently precise calculation based on incompatible inputs.

05

An example to explain the calculation

Take a deliberately simplified example on a comparable purchase line in this scope. For 2,500 units actually ordered, a €50 baseline price and €49 obtained price produce a €2,500 gross difference. If implementation adds €300, the net benefit is €2,200. These figures are fictional and do not estimate the result your organization should expect.

This checks the arithmetic, not the performance of the whole approach. Confirm the unit, period and purchased service, then retain invoices and additional costs. Explain volume reductions, removed services or different quality separately. Benefits only become realized after the corresponding transactions occur.

06

Measure what actually changed

Packaging and logistics cost per intact delivery.

Agree the baseline before claiming a benefit. Define scope, eligible volumes, quality, time period and costs required to change the situation. An identified opportunity, an approved decision, an order and an invoiced result are separate steps. Tracking them independently prevents an estimate from becoming a promise.

Cash released from lower inventory and staff time saved create value, but are not automatically recurring cash savings of the same amount. If outcome-based fees are appropriate, agree their calculation base. Subscriptions or fixed fees may better suit risk prevention and avoided costs that are difficult to verify.

07

Conditions for a useful result

Material reduction must not increase returns or damage. Trials should also measure packing time.

Approval should match the consequence of the decision. A different pack size does not require the same review as a new critical reference. Teams need access to the explanation, documents and person who accepted the change. This traceability also supports disputes and rule corrections without removing history.

08

Start with a real case

Choose a category, site or contract where the problem can be observed. Gather sample orders, applicable terms and available outcome evidence. The first exercise should cover the whole chain: data, proposal, approval, action and measurement.

Then compare processing time, matching quality and verifiable results. Errors and rejected proposals matter as much as gains: they reveal missing information or constraints. Expand once owners have a method they understand and can use routinely.