packaging department benchmarking study - pmmi

Sopheon Corporation 2850 Metro Drive Minneapolis, MN 55425-1566 Phone 952-851-7500 Fax 952-851-7766

Sopheon/Teltech February 20, 2001

Research Services

Packaging Department Benchmarking Study Prepared Exclusively for:

Packaging Management Council, and Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute

Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute

4350 N. Fairfax Dr. Suite 600

Arlington, VA 22203

Phone (703) 243-8555

Fax (703) 243-8556

© 2001 Sopheon Corporation This publication was developed and produced by Sopheon/Teltech. The content of this report represents our interpretation and analysis of informa-tion generally available to the public or released by responsible individuals in the companies associated with the products and technologies described therein, but is not guaranteed as to the accuracy or completeness. It does not contain material provided to us in confidence by our clients. Individual companies contacted by Sopheon/Teltech or its representatives in the development of this report may be clients of this and/or other Sopheon/Teltech services.

i

Sopheon/Teltech Research Services PMC Benchmarking Study Survey 2001 Sopheon Corporation. All rights reserved. February 20, 2001

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................1

Summary of Key Sections........................................................................................1 Background Information........................................................................................................................1

Company Information ............................................................................................................................1

Packaging Organization .........................................................................................................................2

Packaging Department Structure ..........................................................................................................2

People ........................................................................................................................................................3

Communications......................................................................................................................................4

Customer Focus.......................................................................................................................................4

Other..........................................................................................................................................................5

Questions or Issues for the PMC Group ....................................................................6

Potential Future Studies...........................................................................................6

Introduction and Research Methodology ............................................................8 Introduction............................................................................................................8

Research Methodology............................................................................................8

Background Information.....................................................................................10 Individual Respondents Category ......................................................................................................10

Background Section Questions...........................................................................................................12

Company Information.........................................................................................16 Summary.............................................................................................................. 16

Questions ............................................................................................................. 16

Packaging Organization......................................................................................20 Summary.............................................................................................................. 20

Questions ............................................................................................................. 21

Packaging Department Structure .......................................................................31 Summary.............................................................................................................. 31

Questions ............................................................................................................. 31

People ....................................................................................................................35 Summary.............................................................................................................. 35

Questions ............................................................................................................. 36

Communications ..................................................................................................48

Table of Contents

ii PMC Benchmarking Study Survey Sopheon/Teltech Research Services February 20, 2001 2001 Sopheon Corporation. All rights reserved.

Summary.............................................................................................................. 48

Questions ............................................................................................................. 48

Customer Focus ....................................................................................................52 Summary.............................................................................................................. 52

Questions ............................................................................................................. 52

Other .....................................................................................................................54 Summary.............................................................................................................. 54

Questions ............................................................................................................. 54

Appendix A: Participating Companies................................................................1

Appendix B: PMC Benchmarking Study Survey ...............................................3 Background Information ..........................................................................................3

Company Information .............................................................................................5

Packaging Organization ...........................................................................................6 Packaging Department Fit in the Company Organization ...............................................................6

Packaging Department Structure ..........................................................................................................8

People ........................................................................................................................................................9

Communications....................................................................................................................................13

Customer Focus.....................................................................................................................................15

Other........................................................................................................................................................16

Appendix C. Sopheon/Teltech Team Members .................................................17

Appendix D. Post Survey Comments .................................................................18

1


Executive Summary

Purpose

The Packaging Management Council (PMC) is interested in raising the visibility of the importance to the packaging function within companies. The PMC believes that the way in which packaging functions are organized and structured within companies plays a key role in how the value of the function is viewed. To that end, the PMC commissioned this study to provide a benchmark of key attributes of packaging departments and packaging’s role in the corporation today. The Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute (PMMI) was instrumental in supporting this effort and was a co-partner in the survey research. A total of 34 respondents completed an in-depth questionnaire (See Appendix B to review the questionnaire).

Summary of Key Sections

Background Information

Most of the respondents work as managers or executives in corporate or divisional pack-aging departments. Their companies are large corporations with annual volumes of over US$1 billion, with the majority taking in over $5 billion. The departments and respon-dents handle mostly the materials/containers aspect of packaging. Some respondents also handle packaging machinery.

Company Information

Companies queried for this survey served both retail and industrial/institutional custom-ers. The largest product areas were food and beverages (62%) and electronics (24%). Eighty-eight percent of the companies reported having global operations outside the United States.

Almost all respondents saw their companies as striving to be innovative and in the fore-front of new packaging technology, although only about half see this as “always or usu-ally” rather than “sometimes.” There was a similar breakdown of results when respondents were asked if their companies saw the packaging department as “a key player” in the organization. Almost 80% of the respondents indicated that reducing and maintaining packaging costs was a primary goal. 1 Other packaging organizations are more developmental in nature, responsible for developing new packaging materials and structures for the business.2

1 The fact that cost control rates so high suggests that packaging is not yet perceived as a manage-ment/marketing concern by many companies. Rather, it continues to be viewed as something to be

Executive Summary

2 PMC Benchmarking Study Survey Sopheon/Teltech Research Services February 20, 2001 2001 Sopheon Corporation. All rights reserved.

Packaging Organization

Most of the respondents were in central packaging groups at a corporate or divisional level, with a large plurality (44%) reporting into Research & Development/Technical Services departments. Centralized packaging groups tend to be stronger, have better re-tention, and improved performance in completing objectives. Most packaging depart-ments were pulled into a project early in its inception, and it was common for them to initiate some new packaging projects.

While sales and marketing are typically key business drivers, packaging departments are in many ways a central focal point for a company because they commonly interface with most internal departments as well as outside vendors. For the most part, these depart-ments determined their own strategy; 29% of respondents determined their own strategy independently, and 56% said they used consensus methods within their packaging de-partment.

Department respondents emphasized materials and components as their primary func-tions. New and modified package developments, packaging specifications, and cost sav-ings were frequently handled by all respondents, whereas machinery, quality assurance and graphics were not.

Packaging Department Structure

Departments were most frequently (38%) organized along product lines, with another quarter organized by business units (24%), which in turn also tend to be organized along product lines. Another quarter of the departments were organized around the specific ex-pertise of the department members (26%). Approximately 75% of the departments had restructured in the past five years, perhaps reflecting organizational volatility and “reen-gineering” in companies in general.3

managed, no different than, say, “ingredients” or “supplies”. Top management still needs to be convinced that packaging is more than just another type of product ingredient. 2 The emphasis placed on the development of new and innovative packaging is expected to in-crease. 3 While restructuring and change seem to be a passion of many organizations, these changes, if not obviously based on the needs of the business, can be very detrimental to packaging organizations, leading to instability in the workforce, uncertainty in direction, difficulty in recruiting and retain-ing quality resources.

Executive Summary

3


Projects were managed with varying methods that combined teams, management, and prioritization. The overwhelming majority (94%) of managers controlled projects by ob-jectives and monitoring major milestones as opposed to using micro-management. Eighty-five percent described their packaging process as a “defined” rather than an in-definite process. Sixty-two percent used some type of project management software to aid in controlling and monitoring projects. Only 41% had an internal packaging council in the company. These councils are made up of senior packaging staff from the business units and sometimes include marketing, purchasing, plant operations, engineering, and quality control. The purpose of the packaging council is generally to share information, prevent redundancy and transfer technology.

People

The size of packaging departments surveyed varied from a two person staff to one hun-dred, with a median of one manager, six professionals, two technical support staff, and one clerical worker. Of those companies that reported additional packaging engineers at local manufacturing facilities, 83% stated these engineers reported directly to the local facility. Although most companies evaluated their staff needs based on their project workload, about one-quarter said they would use temporaries or outside consultants in-stead of increasing staff when faced with too many projects for current staff.4 Approxi-mately three-quarters indicated that their departments’ number of projects had increased over the last year, with a median of seven projects per professional. Projects are divided into approximately 50% for new packaging, 40% for existing packaging support, and 10% for “other.”

Employee evaluations were done against predetermined objectives by the great majority of companies (94%), with 88% giving formal reviews on a regular basis. Many compa-nies also sought the views of clients and those outside the department in giving evalua-tions.

Current educational levels for packaging professionals run from high school diplomas and specific experience to those with doctorate degrees. However, there is a definite ten-dency to increase education levels, with many companies requiring minimums of a Bachelor in Packaging for new hires. In fact, 15 out of 29 respondents indicated a min i-mum level for new hires that was higher than the educational level of current members of their department.

4 The trend of hiring outside consultants, including contract packagers and design agencies, will continue as headcount numbers are not increasing. Also, the pool of available, experienced talent is not large, leading to a necessity to employ early retirees to supplement and train new, inexperi-enced technical resources.

Executive Summary


Employees were motivated to perform and stay with the company in a variety of ways. Money was important; special monetary awards and raises tied closely to performance were frequently practiced. However, only about a quarter of the companies reported that they provided pay higher than the industry average to retain employees.

All companies reported that they support training for employees, although most said it was based on an individual judgment and no set amount was guaranteed. Industry trade shows were also used by over 90% to enhance professional skills and knowledge.

Risk-taking by employees was not always positively rewarded. Fifty percent said it was only sometimes rewarded, whereas 32% felt it was rarely or never rewarded.

Communications

The packaging departments relied heavily on informal communications.5 Meetings, dis-cussions, and emails were frequently used within departments; whereas printed memos, newsletters, and project status reports were circulated by less than half of those surveyed. Likewise, only 41% circulated a general status report to other departments. Upward communications also tended toward discussions, either through or outside the chain of command, rather than using more formal submission processes. Even in the key commu-nications issue of transferring practices amongst engineers, only half had formal proce-dures covering these practices, instead of using informal discussions or collections of prior memos.

In keeping with packaging as a focal point for key company issues, 59% kept track of what is going on in other departments and 91% used task teams where appropriate. Sev-enty one percent communicated with internal experts for help with issues involving gov-ernmental and environmental effects on packaging.

Customer Focus

Packaging departments used primarily internal marketing and sales people to keep them informed of customer wants and needs. Three-quarters of them also depended on focus groups and consumer testing, although only about half initiated this testing. 6

5 This may reflect the reality that packaging departments are (1) usually physically located in one area, so popping into a colleague’s office makes more sense than writing a memo, (2) packaging is a dynamic aspect of manufacturing, which does not afford much time for formal, written reports, and (3) when market deadlines and competitive pressures are putting increased pressure to speed products/packages to market, there is less time to prepare and digest a comprehensive report of strategic alternatives. 6 Journals, publications, the Internet, supplier meetings, and most importantly, a separate, internal organization focused on technology harvesting and data-mining are key to identifying the latest developments in machinery, material and container technology.

Executive Summary

5


Approximately two-thirds of the companies conducted consumer research for new prod-ucts or packaging, but only about 40% used it for feedback on current packaging. Very few conducted these tests on a regular basis in order to determine how they are doing.

Other

This section asked about contributions to college level schools of packaging. Slightly more than half (56%) stated that their companies contributed directly to packaging schools. Thirty-eight percent of respondents contributed to the Michigan State School of Packaging, with only a few contributing to the other schools.

Executive Summary


Questions or Issues for the PMC Group

During discussions between Sopheon/Teltech and PMMI, it was suggested by PMMI that the PMC committee could answer questions or provide additional comments that would add to the report. These questions are suggested for discussion during the upcoming PackExpo committee meeting:

1. What is meant by “an internal packaging council? ” Does this mean the same thing to everybody?

2. The bulk of the respondents were from large food manufacturing companies. How does this compare with what you expected? How does it compare with the makeup of PMC itself?

3. Sopheon/Teltech asked respondents to give the mission and vision of the department. How often do you refer to your mission and vision when making decisions on a day-to-day basis? Do most people in your department know what it is without looking it up?

4. All companies supported technical training or improvement, but most did not offer a set amount each year. In your experience, how many days of training does the average packaging engineer get in a year?

Potential Future Studies

The responses we received from the questionnaire lead to a number of possibilities for more in-depth research. The current respondents (with their approval) can make up an initial base for an ongoing panel, and additional members can be added as needed based on the information PMMI wishes to gather.

In addition to following up on answers to this questionnaire to compare to the Year 2000 Benchmark, the following studies might be of interest:

§ A similar benchmark among smaller companies

§ A similar benchmark among non-food targeted companies, e.g., electronics, household products, medical/pharmaceutical

§ Surveying staff engineers using many of the questions in the “People” area

§ Evaluations of non-PMMI training and events to get ideas and direction

§ More in-depth training questions, such as: How often do people attend training sessions? What is most helpful?

§ Short-term questions of interest that would cover issues occurring over the past 30 or 60 days

Executive Summary

7


§ Hot topic questions on new technical or packaging news developments to get quick feedback to members (e.g., passage of a new environmental regulation, change in child resistant packaging laws, or use of new barrier coatings in packaging)

§ More detail and follow-up on areas of importance to the committee

§ Follow-up study to determine the typical workloads for packaging engineers, given that most departments indicated that the numbers of projects they are handling are increasing—Sopheon/Teltech could follow this issue over time, as well as by looking at the number of projects per engineer.

8


Introduction and Research Methodology

Introduction

The Packaging Management Council (PMC) has a central role in increasing the visibility and importance of the packaging function within companies. To that end, the PMC spon-sored a benchmarking study that provides PMC membership with the knowledge of best practices for organizing and structuring the packaging function. The PMC asked for So-pheon/Teltech’s assistance in developing and conducting a benchmarking study. Issues of interest included, but were not limited to, how companies compare in terms of organ-izational structure, job functions, resources (personnel and budget and location), commu-nication, and number of projects.

Research Methodology

In order to get a good base of quality respondents, it was decided that each PMC commit-tee member would select at least three peers in other companies and contact them person-ally to encourage them to participate. Combined with members of the PMC itself, expectations were to obtain 30 qualified respondents. This method was very successful and 34 usable, completed questionnaires were included in this report.

The following steps were followed during the course of the project:

1. PMMI developed the candidate list of companies to benchmark.

2. Sopheon/Teltech developed the benchmarking questionnaire. PMMI was asked to review, comment, edit, and approve the questionnaire.

3. PMMI administered the benchmarking questionnaire to the manager of the packaging department at each candidate company.

4. Sopheon/Teltech compiled the survey results and wrote the final report.

Individual answers are kept anonymous and are not identified as to respondent or com-pany. A summary list of participating companies are included in Appendix A of this re-port.

Study Background and Methodology

9


The questionnaire was divided into several sections of interest, each containing several questions. Sopheon/Teltech tabulated and summarized the results of each question. A summary of each section’s responses precedes the results of the individual questions. Please note that many questions allowed the respondent to choose more than one answer, so not all totals will add up to 100%. Appendix D includes follow-on comments from members of the PMC.

10



Summary

The purpose of the questions in this section was to provide an idea of who the respon-dents and their departments are, their level and fit in the organization, and what size of corporation and section of the corporation they work in.

Most of the respondents were from packaging departments in large corporations with an-nual volumes of over US$1 billion, with the majority over $5 billion. Their department was at the corporate (three-quarters) or division (one-quarter) level, and their personal titles range from senior packaging engineer to vice president. Their packaging depart-ments were primarily materials/container oriented (as opposed to packaging equipment), with some departments handling both. This strong combination of large companies and key packaging leaders within the companies gives a good overview of the current status of packaging departments in major U.S. and international (with major U.S. operations) corporations today.

Thirty-four respondents, representing thirty-one unique corporations, are compiled in this survey. A summary list of companies is included in Appendix A.

Questions

Individual Respondents Category

Job position information on the individual respondents was recorded to get an idea of the title, position, department titles and immediate supervisor titles of company leaders in the packaging industry. Respondents themselves tended to be managers or directors, with some senior packaging engineers and vice presidents also responding. They typically re-port in to levels from manager and director to vice president and president.

Respondent Title Department Supervisor Title

Senior Packaging Engineer R&D

Director Packaging & Processing Technology

Packaging & Processing Technology Sr. VP Technology & Innovation

Director Package Development Sr. VP Forecasting & Strategy

Senior Director of Packaging Technology

Packaging Technology VP Planning & Development

Group Manager-Package Devel-opment

Package Development Director-Program Management

VP, Global Packaging Technology VP, Manufacturing, Engineering, Technology


11


Respondent Title Department Supervisor Title

Director of Packaging R&D Packaging R&D Senior VP of R&D

Director of Global Packaging Packaging R&D Vice President Global R&D

Manager of Package Development Packaging Technology Director of Engineering

Packaging Project Manager Package Engineering Director of Packaging

Engineering Specialist Packaging Resource Center Engineering Manager

Director of Packaging Packaging Exec. VP Technical & Manufac-turing

Corporate Packaging Program Manager

Hardware Development Program Hardware Development Program Manager

Director Package Development & Design VP Engineering Development

Sr. Director of Packaging Devel-opment

Packaging Development Executive VP of R&D

Sr. Packaging Engineer New Products Engineering

Director Packaging Development Packaging Development VP Operations

Director, Packaging and Durables Development

Packaging & Durables Development VP Research & Development

Manager Packaging Systems Packaging Systems Sr. Manager Package/Product Development

Manager, R&D Package & Proc-ess Development

Package Development Sr. VP Technology

Director R&D President

Director of Technology Research, Development; Packaging, Processing, Product

Sr. VP Research & Develop-ment, QA

Packaging Engineering Pkg. Eng. Mgr.

Director Package Engineering & Graphics De-sign

Director, Production Systems Engineering

Manager, Packaging Engineering Packaging Engineering Manger, Global Supply Base Group

Director-Packaging Technology R&D VP R&D/QA

Director Corporate Packaging Graphics & Packaging Services Director Graphics and Packaging

Assoc. Director Packaging VP

Research Associate Artistry R&D Manager

Manager of Packaging Develop-ment

R&D Senior Director Corporate De-velopment

Packaging Engineering Services Manager, Pkg. Engineering Ser-vices

Senior Engineer, Corporate Pack-aging

Worldwide Distribution Operations Support

Manager, WDOS

Director of Packaging Packaging Service Sr. VP of Operations

Senior Director Global Packaging Innovation Sr. VP Global Innovation



Background Section Questions

1. Annual wholesale dollar volume of parent company (Select one):

The survey covered mostly large companies, as measured by annual dollar volume. Most of the responding companies were over US$5 billion in annual sales, with an-other quarter of them between $1 and $5 billion.

Choices No. of Respondents Percentage

0–100 million 1 3%

101–500 million 0 0%

501 million–1 billion 3 9%

1+ – 5 billion 9 26%

5+ billion 21 62%

2. 2. I am responding to this questionnaire on the following level with respect to my corporation (Select one): (Please select the level most applicable to your depart-ment)

About three-quarters of the 34 respondents were at the corporate level. The rest were at the divisional level.


Corporate 25 74%

Division 9 26%

Product line(s) or other grouping within a division 0 0%

3. Division or product lines covered in questionnaire:

Typical products included beer, entertainment, household products, personal prod-ucts, yogurts, snacks, soups, beverages, biscuits, watches, frozen pizza, jellies, snacks, and electronics for personal or industry use.


13


4. Annual wholesale dollar volume of corporate, division, or product line(s) covered in this questionnaire (Select one):

This question covered the annual dollar volumes of the divisions or subdivisions for the individual respondent’s department. Here again, the questionnaire dealt with higher volume operations; 80% fit in the $1 to $5 billion or over $5 billion catego-ries.

Choices No. of Respondents

Percentage

0–1 million 0 0%

1+ – 10 million 0 0%

10+ –50 million 1 3%

50+ –100 million 0 0%

101–500 million 2 6%

501 million – 1 billion 3 9%

1+ – 5 billion 13 39%

5+ billion 14 42%

5. Which best describes your department’s packaging function in the corporation?

This question further confirmed that respondent’s packaging departments tended to be at the corporate level or multi-divisional level, as opposed to local or brand group.


Corporate HQ packaging function covering several divisions or entire corporation 26 76%

Division, brand group, or local packaging function within the corporation 8 24%

No response 0 0%

6. What is the primary responsibility of your department? (Select one)

Packaging engineers and packaging departments frequently handled either materi-als/containers or the machinery aspect of packaging. Some departments handled both. Approximately two-thirds of our respondents’ departments handled the materi-als/containers aspect of packaging expertise, and approximately one-quarter of the departments handled both. Only one respondent’s department was exclusive to the machinery side.



Choice No. of Respondents

Percentage

Packaging materials/containers 22 65%

Packaging machinery 1 3%

Both packaging materials/containers and Machinery 9 26%

Other (specify) 0 0%

No response 2 6%

7. What is your primary responsibility? (Select one)

As a follow up to the previous question, the respondents were asked which aspect of packaging their jobs entailed. The results were similar. Two of the seven combined department people handled only the materials/containers aspect.

Choice No. of Respondents Percentage

Packaging materials/containers 24 71%

Packaging machinery 1 3%

Both packaging materials/containers and machinery 7 21%

Other (specify) 0 0%

No response 2 6%


15


16


Company Information

Summary

The questions in this section solicited additional background about the respondents’ companies, including how they are set up, what are their major products, and what are their attitudes towards the importance of product packaging.

Customers of respondents’ companies included both retail and industrial/institutional businesses. The largest product area was food and beverages, with 62% (21 respondents). The other major group was electronics at 24% (eight respondents). Eighty-eight percent of the companies reported having global operations outside the United States.

Almost all respondents saw their companies as striving to be innovative and in the fore-front of new packaging technology, although only about half saw this as a usual practice, rather than a “sometimes” practice. There was a similar breakdown of results when re-spondents were asked if their companies saw the packaging departments as “a key player” in the organization. On the other hand, almost 80% of the companies indicated that reducing and maintaining packaging costs was a primary goal. Although the positive importance of packaging seemed recognized at least part of the time, there was still some implication that packaging was a necessary component to be minimized and not an inte-gral part of every product design and sale.

Questions

8. Types of products packaged (please check all that apply)

Approximately two-thirds of the respondents checked off “retail” sales. This number would actually be higher if “retail” was defined to include any goods sold to consum-ers. Almost half of the respondents sold to bulk or industrial markets. The great ma-jority of the companies (62%) produced food and/or beverages. Approximately one-quarter of the companies produced electronics, with other categories following. Only 15% of the respondents checked off mail order or e-commerce, but it should be noted that additional products may be available through resellers now or in the future, and this could become an issue later on.

Company Information

17


Respondents tended to check off more than one category for this question. For in-stance, only eight respondents checked off a single category, whereas twelve respon-dents checked off three categories.

Choices No. of Re-sponses

Percentage

Retail 23 68%

Bulk, institutional or industrial 16 47%

Mail order or e-commerce special packaging 5 15%

Food, beverage 21 62%

Cosmetics, health & beauty aids 5 15%

Medical devices or pharmaceuticals 5 15%

Household chemicals 2 6%

Hazardous materials 4 12%

Hard goods, furniture 0 0%

Electronics 8 24%

Industrial, automotive parts or machinery 0 0%

Other 3 9%

9. Company’s general attitude toward packaging (Please evaluate each statement): A=Always or Usually, S=Sometimes, R=Rarely or never

Whereas high innovation in packaging is usually important to almost half of the re-sponding companies, cost cutting was seen as a primary goal for almost 80% of re-spondents. There was almost an even split between those companies that treat packaging as a key player most of the time rather than some of the time, with 6% feeling that they were rarely or never treated that way. A little less than half the com-panies commit major development monies to packaging all or most of the time.

Interestingly, the two major product areas of food/beverages and electronics had about the same percentage (38%) of respondents that felt that their companies always or usually strives to be very innovative and in the forefront of new packaging tech-nology.

Company Information


Statement A % S % R %

We strive to be very innovative and in the fore-front of new technology

15 45% 17 52% 1 3%

Cutting and containing packaging costs are primary goals

26 79% 6 18% 1 3%

Packaging is critical to the sale of our products 20 61% 10 30% 3 9%

As long as the package protects the product and has no negatives, it is doing its job

11 33% 16 48% 6 18%

The packaging department is very important in our company and is treated like a key player

16 48% 15 45% 2 6%

Our company commits major development and capital money to packaging projects

15 45% 12 36% 6 18%

10. Which best describes your corporate and business unit structure?

About three-quarters of the companies were set up by product line or by a group of product lines, some with separate international business units. The other quarter uses a regional business model.


Regional – by country and/or regions within the U.S. and/or international 8 24%

Product line or group of product lines 14 41%

Product line or group of product lines, but with separate international busi-ness unit(s)

12 35%

Other 0 0%

No response 0 0%

11. Does your company have global manufacturing and packaging operations?

The great majority of responding companies had international manufacturing and packaging operations.


Yes 30 88%

No 3 9%

No response 1 3%

Company Information

19


20



Summary

This section gives an overview of the packaging organization as it fits within the com-pany, particularly with respect to the following:

§ Whom the packaging organization works with and for

§ When it is pulled into the process

§ What its mission and responsibilities are

§ What it does

Most of the respondents were in central packaging groups at a corporate or divisional level, with a large plurality (44%) reporting into Research & Development/Technical Services departments. Most packaging departments were pulled into a project early in its inception, and it was common for them to initiate some new packaging projects.

Packaging departments are in many ways a central focal point for a company because they commonly interface with most internal departments as well as outside vendors. For the most part, respondents said they determine their own strategies, with 29% of respon-dents saying they did this themselves, and 56% using consensus methods within their packaging department.

The functions performed emphasized packaging engineering for materials and compo-nents. New and modified package developments, packaging specifications and cost sav-ings were frequently handled by all respondents, whereas machinery, quality assurance, and graphics were not.7

7 If a new package requires new equipment or technology for manufacture and filling, the packag-ing department is often involved in specifying, but not designing, the specific equipment perform-ance requirements. There is strong interaction from the materials standpoint.


21


Questions

12. Which statement best describes your department’s general reporting relationship? (Select one)

Almost all respondents worked in central packaging groups at a corporate or divi-sional level.


Percentage

Central packaging group at a corporate level 22 65%

Central packaging group at a divisional level 8 24%

Packaging group assigned to a business unit of several product lines 2 6%

Packaging group assigned to a business unit of one product line 0 0%

Individual packaging professionals assigned to product or project teams, with no report into a separate packaging function

2 6%

No response 2 6%

If you answered Central packaging group at a corporate or divisional level, does your department also dedicate resources to specific business units or product lines?

About half the respondents at this level stated they also dedicated resources to specific business units, with many not responding.


Yes 14 50%

No 2 7%

No response from “qualified” respondents 12



13. What department does your packaging group report to? (Select one)

Almost half of the respondents’ departments reported to Research and Develop-ment/Technical Services departments. Fifteen percent reported to Engineering, and twelve percent directly to senior corporate management. “Other” included Manufac-turing and Technical Operations, a Customer Services division, and Corporate Distri-bution.8


Percentage

Corporate General Management – President, CEO or Executive VP 4 12%

Division or business unit general management (i.e., president, general manager)

2 6%

Purchasing/materials resources 1 3%

Marketing/brand management 1 3%

Engineering 5 15%

Manufacturing/plant management 3 9%

Research and development/technical services 15 44%

Quality assurance/quality control 0 0%

None – There is no separate packaging department – each individual is part of a team

1 3%

Other 3 9%

8 Generally, packaging equipment is part of the engineering or operations group, packaging quality control is part of a technical division or a stand-alone group and packaging graphics is part of the marketing department.


23


14. When does packaging first get pulled into the process? (Please evaluate each statement in the table below). (A=Always or Usually, S=Sometimes, R=Rarely or Never)

This question chronicles the entry of the packaging department into the process, from self-initiation of the package idea by the packaging department to lack of inclusion until the product is close to launch. A substantial number of the respondents (44%) reported that they always or usually initiate new packaging out of their own depart-ment. However, this is somewhat misleading. Out of the 15 respondents that an-swered “A” to this question, only two did not answer A to at least one of the other choices, with several answering A to three, four, and even five additional choices. Likewise, all those who answered “A” close to product launch also said they always or usually were included at an earlier time also. Because of this, the results must be looked at as more of a general trend: Most of the departments did some project initia-tion. They were frequently included at the time another group initiates the project, they became included in remaining projects at other early stages, and only occasion-ally didn’t get brought into the loop until very late when the product is finalized or close to launch.

Statement A Percent S Percent R Percent

We initiate the new packaging concept ourselves 15 44% 18 53% 1 3%

New product or package conception by other group 8 24% 22 65% 4 12%

When the company commits to the project 17 50% 11 32% 6 18%

First team or project major meeting 17 50% 16 47% 1 3%

When the product is finalized 7 21% 9 26% 18 53%

Close to product launch 5 15% 6 18% 23 68%

15. How often does the packaging function work directly with the following depart-ments or groups? (Please evaluate each listing in the table below). (A=Always or Usually, S=Sometimes, R=Rarely or Never)

These results were consistent with the reputation of packaging departments for work-ing with most other departments in a company, as well as working with outside ven-dors. Other than for government agencies (for which many companies prefer to provide specialized personnel), the packaging functions worked with all groups.



Statement A % S % R %

Purchasing/materials resources 31 91% 3 9% 0 0%

Marketing/brand management 30 88% 3 9% 1 3%

Engineering 26 76% 8 24% 0 0%

Manufacturing/plant management 26 76% 8 24% 0 0%

Research and development/technical services 26 76% 5 15% 3 9%

Quality assurance/quality control 15 44% 15 44% 4 12%

Outside vendors 28 82% 6 18% 0 0%

Government agencies (federal, state, or local) 3 9% 15 44% 16 47%

16. What are the roles and responsibilities of the packaging department? Please state the mission and vision of your department.

17. Was this a previously prepared formally stated mission statement?

Respondents were requested to state the roles and responsibilities of their department, and then give their mission and/or vision statement. In addition, they were asked whether their mission statement was previously prepared as the department’s formal mission statement or was created in response to this questionnaire. Nineteen respon-dents (56%) had a formal mission statement in place for their department.

Roles, responsibilities, and mission statements tended to discuss the basic purview of a packaging department—the design and development of packaging that meets company, customer, and distribution requirements. Some companies stressed cost issues, while oth-ers mentioned innovation, learning, and applying new technologies.

Note: Several statements were modified to protect the identities of individual companies.


25


16a Roles and Responsibilities

16b Mission Statement

17 Previously Prepared?

Create, design, and validate To create, design, and validate leading edge innovation at competitive pricing

Directs corporate packaging strategy, identifies new technology opportunities, evaluates and de-velops new equipment, manages packaging spec i-fications, manages packaging laboratory, assures packaging protects products throughout distribu-tion, and meets all appropriate regulations.

Drive business growth by developing and com-mercializing consumer/customer preferred pac k-aging and the equipment necessary for efficient production

Y

1. Identify and recommend design & technology solutions in response to current and projected business strategies. 2. Lead the applied develop-ment and commercialization of approved designs and technologies in response to specific project goals.

Differentiate our clients in the eyes of their con-sumers through meaningful application of pac k-aging designs and technologies

Y

Package innovation, cost reduction, specifications, packaging technical services

Mission: Develop quality package designs and global specifications that are operationally effi-cient, customer driven, cost effective and envi-ronmentally sound. Vision: Continue to keep our company the leader in emerging and innovative packaging technologies for the beverage indus-try.

Y

Package development - concept to launch We create and manufacture the world's best grooming products

Y

Design, development, and implementation of new packages; continuous improvement of packaging

Superior delivery systems at lowest total deliv-ered cost

Y

Develop and specify new packaging Enhance consumer's lives through world class packaging

Y

Structural packaging development for new and existing products. New package concepts. Techni-cal package problems solving, vendor and co-packer qualifications, equipment/materials com-patibility, technical package drawings

Provide package innovation as well as special skills and services that are integral to the long-term profitable growth of the company

Y

Develop packaging to support sales and marketing efforts. Support entire supply chain.

Provide the best packaging at lowest delivered cost to provide competitive advantage

Design, develop, and test packages for drugs and devices. Support programs from R&D to Commer-cial production

Provide innovative and effective packaging for all our products in a timely and cost effective fashion

Gather, database and apply all internal/external resources on packaging related technology for existing and new products

Analyze, specify, and apply

Various but total responsibility for technology J.D.I. - Just Do It!

Works closely with other functional groups to de-velop a cost effective, environmentally responsible product delivery system

Company packaging becomes a strongly inte-grated, process focused, capability-based or-ganization. It has the ability to react quickly and effectively and successfully navigate our ever-changing dynamic environment in meeting future customer and business needs.

Y

Global new package development, trademark pro-tection, specifications

To develop the best packages for the best bever-ages in the world

Y






Packaging development, productivity, specific a-tions, plant/operations support

Mission: Function as a unified group sharing expertise, skills and best practices to drive inno-vation and technologies and drive at costs while supporting the initiatives of each consumer unit. Vision: To be recognized as a world class Pack-aging Organization, setting the standards for the industry.

Y

Design and test structural packaging for new prod-ucts

The scope of packaging and durables within a consumer goods organization ranges from ideation of a produc t or package through commercialization

To be the best developmental, technical resource for durable products and packages in the con-sumer products industry. Establish packaging and durable products that reflect, enhance, and complement our market leading brands.

Y

Package design/development, materials testing qualification and specifications technical assis-tance to operations

Support the goals and objectives of the business units by identifying new package con-cepts/technologies, lower cost package/material alternatives and providing tech support to opera-tions.

Design, develop, and implement new packages and cost savings

Design, develop and implement consumer pre-ferred packaging at optimal cost

Y

Development of packaging materials and struc-tures for hand-held frozen food market. Shelf life and shelf presence.

To meet consumer needs for convenience frozen hand-held microwave foods.

Project management and leadership within the company

State of the art packaging development and in-novation for brand growth; technical service to the current operating system.

Package design and implementation. Package and fragility testing. Package supply chain. Pkg. Cost reduction, specifications and standards.

Provide the lowest total cost packaging solutions necessary to protect our products, supplies, and parts throughout our worldwide distribution env i-ronment. Assure satisfactory customer accep-tance through efficient and environmentally sound pac kaging designs and support.

Y

Structural packaging development and graphics coordination for every division of the company

Vision: PEGD is viewed as the Worldwide Center of Excellence for package development and commercialization in our company. Customers value our experience and expertise, as we work in partnership with them to ensure business suc-cess in a continually changing environment. Em-ployees are motivated and flexible, and play a key role in a highly credible organization. Mis-sion: Corporate technical resource that provides expertise in all aspects of package development and commercialization; provides customer, shareholder & employee satisfaction; value added packaging solutions to achieve company performance expectations.

Y

New product packaging development, test doc u-mentation for outbound products and spares

None

Identify and develop value-added packaging that provides and competitive advantage for our prod-ucts.

Design, develop, prototype and implement new packages based upon market needs. Produce all graphics required for packaging.

Y


27





Material and equipment for all packaging and re-lated projects

To become undisputed leaders Y

Development of packaging components (concept, development & maintenance)

To provide technical leadership to manage global packaging technology through all stages of de-velopment.

Y

Development of new technologies, troubleshooting, packaging change implementation

Identify and implement packaging technologies which protect product quality, improve overall appearance, respond to environmental needs, are cost effective, and that will enhance produc-tivity.

Y

Package design, fragility and package testing, quality control, system release, drawings, etc.

To develop and leverage best packaging practices to maximize shareholder value, satisfy customers and comply with legal requirements

To develop and leverage best practices related to product distribution to ensure compliance, maxi-mize shareholder value, and satisfy customers.

Development of packaging specifications, mainte-nance of specs., bills of materials, trials at facto-ries, cost reduction, etc.

To be a global leader in packaging and deliver consumer benefits through integrated solutions

Y

18. Who determines strategy? (Choose the best answer)

Most of the respondents (56%) indicated that their departments used a consensus ap-proach for determining strategy, with the whole department participating. Almost a third (29%) determined strategy themselves, and 15% stated that strategy develop-ment was the prerogative of upper management.


I do 10 29%

The whole packaging department through discussion and consensus 19 56%

Our department head 0 0%

Upper management for the division or corporation 5 15%

No response 0 0%



19. Please indicate on the following table if your department performs these functions. (Please evaluate each listing) (A=Always or Usually, S=Sometimes, R=Rarely or Never)

Not surprisingly, new package development for new products was always or usually performed by an overwhelming 94% of the respondents. Approximately 80% also gave this strong response for modifications to existing packaging, line extensions, packaging specifications, new packaging for existing products, and cost savings pro-jects. Packaging research and alternate vendors also drew more than half in the “A” category and is performed to some extent by almost everybody.

Probably because most of the people surveyed work at the corporate level, respon-dents tended to be less heavily involved in plant and production related issues—plant support, maintenance, machinery, and quality assurance—although a substantial number chose “sometimes” for these items. Graphics and graphics specifications is handled by less than half of the respondents, with very few in the “A” category.

Function A % S % R %

Packaging Research (emerging technologies, exploratory) 20 61% 12 36% 1 3%

New Package Development – new products 32 94% 2 6% 0 0%

New Package Development – existing products 27 79% 7 21% 0 0%

Packaging Line Extensions (new sizes or flavors with the same basic package design)

28 82% 4 12% 2 6%

Major modifications to existing packaging (new closures or other improvements)

28 85% 5 15% 0 0%

Cost savings, including alternate materials 27 79% 5 15% 2 6%

Packaging System/ Machinery Development 6 18% 20 59% 8 24%

New and alternate vendors 18 53% 15 44% 1 3%

Maintenance 8 24% 8 24% 18 53%

New or modified graphics 3 9% 13 38% 18 53%

Packaging specification changes and maintenance 28 82% 4 12% 2 6%

Plant support / Troubleshooting 12 35% 17 50% 5 15%

Graphics specification and maintenance 1 3% 9 26% 24 71%

Quality Assurance and ISO support 5 15% 16 47% 13 38%


29


The following is the same table sorted by functions the departments said they (“A”) always or usually performed:

Function (Sorted by A) A % S % R %

New package development – new products 32 94% 2 6% 0 0%


28 85% 5 15% 0 0%

Packaging line extensions (new sizes or flavors with the same basic package design)

28 82% 4 12% 2 6%

Packaging specification changes and maintenance 28 82% 4 12% 2 6%

New package development – existing products 27 79% 7 21% 0 0%

Cost savings, including alternate materials 27 79% 5 15% 2 6%

Packaging research (emerging technologies, exploratory) 20 61% 12 36% 1 3%

New and alternate vendors 18 53% 15 44% 1 3%

Plant support/troubleshooting 12 35% 17 50% 5 15%

Maintenance 8 24% 8 24% 18 53%

Packaging system/machinery development 6 18% 20 59% 8 24%

Quality assurance and ISO support 5 15% 16 47% 13 38%

New or modified graphics 3 9% 13 38% 18 53%

Graphics specification and maintenance 1 3% 9 26% 24 71%

31



Summary

This section reviews how the departments themselves are organized and how projects are assigned and carried out. A plurality (38%) were organized along product lines, with an-other quarter (24%) organized by business units. Since business units in the company itself were frequently organized along product lines in this survey, these figures can al-most be combined in terms of individuals actually assigned specific product lines. About one fourth (26%) of the departments were organized around the specific expertise of the department members. Approximately three-quarters of the departments had restructured in the past five years, perhaps reflecting organizational volatility and “reengineering” in companies in general.

Projects are managed with varying methods that combine teams, management, and prior i-tization. The overwhelming majority of managers (94%) controlled projects by objectives and monitoring major milestones as opposed to using micro-management. Eighty-five percent described their packaging process as “defined.” Sixty-two percent used some type of project management software to aid in controlling and monitoring projects. Only 41% had an internal packaging council in the company.

Questions

20. How is your department itself primarily organized?

There was no clear-cut way that packaging organizations were organized. Product lines were the most common, followed by packaging expertise and business units.

Choices No. of Responses Percentage

Product lines 13 38%

Business units 8 24%

Market segments 0 0%

Packaging expertise 9 26%

Geography 1 3%

Project 1 3%

Other (actual listings) 4 12%

Other listings included Business, Advanced Technology and Geographi c Units, New technology and tech-nical services, and Corporate Department comprised of subject matter experts.



21. Has the packaging department reorganized or restructured in the last five years?

Approximately three-quarters of the respondents reported that the ir packaging de-partments had reorganized in the past five years.


Yes 25 74%

No 9 26%

No response 0 0%

22. Do you have an internal packaging council?

Forty-one percent of the respondents reported having an internal packaging council.


Yes 14 41%

No 20 59%

No response 0 0%

23. How would you say projects are managed in your department:(open text)?

Respondents were asked to describe how projects are managed in their departments. Answers ranged from “well” to mentioning priority lists and how teams are formed and managed.

§ Very well. We communicate and cross-manage projects

§ Package development engineers/managers are responsible for specific business units and manage projects from concept through initial production.

§ Individual developers are responsible for leadership and work directly with clients.

§ By packaging commodity—cans, glass, secondary

§ Overall programs are managed by a program manager for group package development, and artwork programs are managed by different package development groups set up by product groupings

§ Based upon defined deliverables (performance/cost/time)

§ By project leaders via teams

§ Based on their value towards our strategic and operating plans

§ Schedule is managed by lead engineer via meetings and communication

§ By a subset of product teams within the company

§ To an engineer working with a business unit


33


§ Well

§ Objectively

§ Cross-functional project teams using stage-gate development process and critical chain tools

§ Engineers and/or supervisors/managers are on business teams with marketing, operations, finance, etc. They determine scope and timing of projects; prioritization is done at a higher level.

§ Generally split up by product line; timelines are dictated by engineering process. Usually everything is ASAP.

§ Major projects are directed by team leaders selected from a multi-disciplinary project team. Lesser scope projects/service functions are managed by the individual packaging managers

§ According to value to the company and by key technical project manager

§ We are very autonomous in R&D Packaging. Packaging and marketing are closely linked. We are application-oriented and marketing-driven.

§ Led by packaging engineers and managers

§ Managed by lead engineer with little supervision by management

§ We are usually part of a business unit or operations team commercializing a package or innovation or change.

§ Individually, cradle to grave

§ Small group—can be marketing lead, plant lead, product development, or packaging lead, depending on program

§ Priority lists with businesses

§ Project by project basis by an external project management department

§ Management by objectives

§ Corporate sets initiatives and standards and then tries to get the divisions to execute to that

§ Well organized



24. How would you say projects are managed in your department?

Ninety four percent of respondents used overall objectives with milestone checks as opposed to micromanaging the projects in their departments.


Percentage

Overall objective, with frequent milestone checkpoints 32 94%

Micro-managed 2 6%

No response 0 0%

25. Is your packaging development process defined?

The great majority (85%) of respondents stated that their process was defined. Inter-estingly, three of the four who stated “No” indicated they were in the electronics in-dustries, and two of the four indicated they were in the medical device/pharmaceutical industry (one was in both).


Yes 29 85%

No 4 12%

No response 1 3%

26. Do you use project management software as part of the process? If so, which one(s?)

The majority (62%) used some form of project management software to manage their projects.


Yes 21 62%

No 13 38%

No response 0 0%

Actual software listed included: Microsoft Project, Lotus Notes, Microsoft Word, cus-tomized MS Access database, Critical Chain, and Stage & Gate. Microsoft Project was the overwhelming choice, garnering 13 out of the 21 “Yes” respondents.

35


People

Summary

This section covers the employees in the packaging department itself:

§ How many there are

§ How many projects respondents work on

§ Types of projects respondents work on

§ How certain factors are determined, such as

− Staffing levels

− Education

− Training opportunities

− Evaluation and rewards

The packaging departments surveyed varied in staff from two persons to one hundred, with a median of one manager, six professionals, two technical support staff, and one clerical worker. Of those companies that reported additional packaging engineers at local manufacturing facilities, 83% stated these engineers reported directly to the local facility. Although most companies evaluated their staff needs based on their project workload, about one-quarter said they would use temporaries or outside consultants, rather than hire additional staff when faced with too many projects for current staff. Approximately three-quarters indicated that their department’s number of projects has increased over the last year, with a median of seven projects per professional. Projects are divided into almost 50% for new packaging, 40% for existing packaging support, and 10% for “other.”

Employee evaluations were done against predetermined objectives by the great majority of companies (94%), with 88% giving formal reviews on a regular basis. Many compa-nies also sought the views of clients and those outside the department in giving evalua-tions.

Current educational levels for packaging professionals ran from high school diplomas with experience to doctorates. However, there was a definite tendency to increase educa-tion levels, with many companies requiring minimums of a Bachelor in Packaging for new hires. In fact, 15 out of 29 respondents indicated a minimum level for new hires that was higher than the level of education of current members of their department.

People


Employees were motivated to perform and stay with the company in a variety of ways. Money was important. Many companies gave out special monetary awards and raises tied closely to performance. However, only about a quarter of the companies reported that they provided pay higher than the industry average to retain employees.

All companies reported that they support training for employees, although most said it was on an individual judgment basis and no set amount was guaranteed. Industry trade shows were also used by over 90% to enhance professional skills and knowledge.

Risk taking by employees was not always positively rewarded. Fifty percent said it was only sometimes rewarded, whereas 32% felt it was rarely or never rewarded.

Questions

27. How many people are involved in the packaging department?

Because of the wide variations in packaging department sizes, the median probably gives us a better picture than the average. Departments tended to have one manager, with a median of six professionals. There was minimal technician and clerical sup-port (nine companies had no technicians and nine companies had no clerical support at all).

Position in Packaging Department Average Minimum Maximum Median

Management (no project responsibility) 2.3 0 8 1

Project leaders or engineers, working managers 14.2 0 90 6

Technical support staff (lab technicians, testing personnel, etc.) 2.8 0 19 2

Clerical support staff 1.1 0 3 1

Total employees in packaging department (may not add up) 21.7 2 100 11

28. How many professional packaging employees are there at company and district HQ?

An average of 27.7 professionals was reported, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 241. The median was 11. It was not clear by looking at the numbers that this ques-tion was answered consistently as to who was considered a packaging professional.

How many at local operations areas such as production plants?

An average of 53 professionals was reported, with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 1100. The median was 1. Fourteen respondents reported zero. Again, it was not clear who was being included as a packaging professional at the local plant level.

People

37


Who do local operations engineers report to?

The great majority (83%) of those who responded that there were local packaging engineers stated that these engineers reported into the local operations.

Choice No. of Respondents Percent

A. HQ outside their operations area (such as central packaging department) 5 17%

B. Local operations management (such as the plant manager in their plant) 25 83%

Total reporting professionals at plants 30

Which reporting setup do you think is most beneficial to the company?

Respondents were asked which of the above setups was most beneficial to the com-pany. Of those that had local operations engineers, most felt that their current report-ing setup was either better or about equal.


A 9 26%

B 11 32%

About equal 8 24%

No response 6 18%

29. How do you determine staffing needs (Check all that apply):

More than half (56%) of respondents periodically reviewed their staffing needs against workloads, whereas 35% justified personnel numbers on an annual basis when they do their budgets. Another 35% assumed current staffing was adequate, but evaluated needs for additional staffing if workloads increased beyond the abilities of the department to reasonably handle them. Approximately one-quarter (26%) kept a core staff and used consultants, outside groups, or temporaries to handle increases and fluctuations in workload.

People


Choices No. of Responses

Percentage

Periodic reviews of current and anticipated projects vs. workload 19 56%

Annual budget requires personnel justification 12 35%

We maintain a core staff and hire consultants, temporaries, or outside groups for workload peaks 9 26%

We use current staff and only reevaluate needs if we do not have enough personnel to accomplish objectives 12 35%


30. How are packaging professionals evaluated and measured? (Check all that apply)

The great majority (94%) of departments used predetermined objectives for em-ployee evaluation. They also gave formal reviews on a regular basis. Half of the re-spondents also have informal performance discussions ongoing throughout the year.

Because packaging is viewed as a client-driven service in the company, about one-quarter used a client rating system, and 62% sought opinions from those outside the department as part of the evaluation. Over half of those looking for these outside opinions did so on a formal basis. One quarter of the respondents also ask peers for ratings and comments. About one-fifth (21%) used a competitive system of rating employees against each other. This system is similar to the old college grading sys-tem of “marking on the curve,” and the number of ratings at different levels must be allocated.

Question Choice No. of Responses Percentage

A Performance is judged against predetermined objectives 32 94%

B Ratings are competitive: The company gives us targets to rate a certain percentage of our employees at each rating level 7 21%

C Formal reviews are given on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis (check closest if applicable) 30 88%

D We use a peer to peer rating system, allowing peers to give ratings and comments 9 26%

E We use a client rating system, allowing clients in other depart-ments to give ratings. 9 26%

F We informally or formally seek opinions from those outside the department before giving ratings 21 62%

G Informal performance discussions are ongoing with employees 17 50%

H We have no formal method 0 0%

I Other (actual listings) 0 0%

Notes: Question C: Monthly, 0; Quarterly, 6; Semi -annual, 18; and Annual, 6 Question F: Informally, 8; Formally, 13

People

39


31. Education and background – Please put an X in each box that represents the edu-cational level of current employees or the level that would be required or preferred for new hires. For instance, you might currently have professionals at all levels, but require an undergraduate degree in packaging and prefer a master’s degree in packaging with an undergraduate degree in at least a technical area for new hires.

This question addressed both the highest and lowest packaging professional educa-tion levels in today’s departments (specialty in packaging was considered higher, then technical area, then other categories within each degree level) compared with the minimum and ideally desired levels for new hires.

As more companies become aware of the importance of packaging and as more uni-versities offer packaging programs, companies have been upgrading their educational expectations for packaging professionals. This increase in expectations looks like it will continue, since approximately half (15 out of 29) of the individual respondents indicated that the minimum requirements for hiring new professionals is greater than the educational level achieved by at least some current members of their department. 62% of departments indicated they would take a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in packaging for new hires, whereas only 35% currently had their lowest professionals at this level or above.

A number of companies showed a preference for hiring more advanced degrees. Sev-enteen percent would prefer a master’s degree in packaging, whereas an additional 17% would prefer a master’s level degree that didn’t have to be specialized in pack-aging. Twelve companies (39%) currently have professionals with master’s degrees in packaging.

People


People

41


Education and back-ground

Total Re-sponding

Master Pkg %

Master Other %

Bachelor Pkg %

Bachelor Tech %

Bachelor Other % A/Train %

HS-Pkg Exper % HS %

Current Professionals (lowest)

31 1 3% 0 0% 10 32% 7 23% 5 16% 4 13% 4 13% 0 0%

Current Professionals (highest)

31 12 39% 8 26% 9 29% 1 3% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Required New Hired Professionals (lowest)

29 0 0% 1 3% 18 62% 7 24% 1 3% 2 7% 0 0% 0 0%

Preferred New Hired Professionals (highest)

30 5 17% 5 17% 19 63% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Note: This question does not address how many are at each level, it only addresses what education levels exist in each department. One current doctorate was noted.

People


People

43


32. How many projects is your department handling? How many projects does the typical engineer handle at one time?

The number of projects handled by a department varied enormously by department size, type of projects handled, and what constitutes the definition of one project.9 The median number of projects per department was 50. Likewise, the number of projects per engineer ranged from two to twenty-seven, with a median of 7.

Question Average Minimum Maximum Median

How many projects is your department handling? 128 8 500 50

How many projects does the typical engineer handle at one time?

9 2 27 7

The number of projects over the last year has:

Three-quarters of the respondents reported that the number of projects has increased over the past year, 12% reported no change, and 6% reported they have decreased.


Increased 26 76%

Decreased 2 6%

Remained the same 4 12%

No response 2 6%

33. If represented on a pie chart, what percentage of time does your department spend on (% should add to 100%)?

Results varied widely between those departments whose duties emphasized new packaging and those that handled all aspects. On average, about half the time was spent on new packaging compared with 40% spent on existing packaging; the “Other” category garnered about 10%.

Item Average Minimum Maximum Median

New packaging 47% 10% 88% 50%

Support for existing packaging 39% 9% 80% 40%

Other 14% 0% 80% 10%

9 Types of projects include new packaging development, core brand support, cost reduction, speci-fication development, machinability issues, productivity, quality improvements and new packag-ing concept exploration.

People


People

45


34. Are there any special rewards or motivational programs for packaging profession-als? (Check all that apply)

Three-quarters of the companies used two rewards tied to money—special bonuses and raises tied to performance. About half had “technical ladder” promotional oppor-tunities and offered special awards for patents. About one-third had company recog-nition programs that allowed performers to win public awards. Only 21% provided benefit type compensation as a reward.

Choice No. of Responses

Percent

Monetary bonus or awards (other than regular pay increases) 26 76%

Non-monetary compensation (time off, health club memberships, etc.) 7 21%

Company recognition programs (employee of the month, etc.) 11 32%

Special awards for patents 17 50%

Technical ladder non-management promotions (i.e., associate engineer, senior engineer, etc.) 18 53%

Raises are tied closely to performance 26 76%

None 1 3%


35. Is technical training or professional improvement supported/funded by your com-pany?

All companies funded this training.

Choice No. of Respondents Percent

Yes 34 100%

No 0 0%

If so, how often? (Select closest one)

Three-quarters of the companies did not provide or limit any set amount of this training—approval was based on specific needs or programs. However, this can work both ways, either leading to generous and frequent training or relegating training to a low priority item as budget and time allowed. Follow-up could determine how often training actually occurs with this type of philosophy.

People



Percentage

Once a year 2 6%

Twice a year 6 18%

Four times a year 0 0%

Six to twelve times a year 1 3%

No set amount – approval based on specific program 25 74%

36. Are people rewarded for taking risks (e.g., untried ideas or unknown technologies) even if they fail? (Select one)

Risk takers will not necessarily fare too well according to most respondents. Only 18% indicated that they would always or usually be rewarded. Half the respondents answered sometimes, which could give pause to a packaging professional worrying about gambling with his/her career. About one-third of respondents indicated that their companies would rarely or never reward failing risk takers.


Always/Usually 6 18%

Sometimes 17 50%

Rarely/Never 11 32%

37. How do you develop professional skills? (Check all that apply)

Outside courses, seminars and industry trade shows were used by over 90% of those who responded.10 Learning by doing followed close behind.

Three-quarters of respondents used mentoring, and two-thirds used in-house formal training sessions (which tend to make more sense for larger departments). Surpris-ingly, only 38% used purchased written materials or software for skill building. It would be interesting to know if this was because of a lack of good materials (or knowledge of any that exist) or a basic dislike of the method.

10 While trade shows attract packaging professionals interested in professional development, the shows are most beneficial for identifying new technology sources and for developing an informal communication network. The PMC would benefit packaging professionals by developing a Pack-aging Managers Leadership Program that would help individuals further develop their leadership and management skills specifically for the packaging function.

People

47



Percentage

In house formal training sessions 22 65%

Outside courses and seminars 32 94%

Industry trade shows (such as PackExpo) 31 91%

Mentoring by more experienced professionals in the group 25 74%

Purchase and availability of written materials and software for skill building 13 38%

Learn by doing and experience 30 88%


38. How do you retain talent?

There was no standout method listed. Over half answered “Yes” to the catchall of the motivational methods in a previous question. Higher pay or benefits and industry av-erage were chosen by 26% and 38% respectively, although one might have expected that to be closer to 50% just by random responses from the industry.

One-quarter of the respondents wrote in other methods. These included state of the art packaging projects, company culture, interesting projects, developing people, close contact with employees’ opinions, company location, and three mentions of stock.


Percentage

Special rewards and motivational programs (such as listed in prior question) 18 53%

Pay overall higher than industry average 9 26%

Benefits overall higher than industry average 13 38%

Numerous opportunities for promotion in packaging department 10 29%

Numerous opportunities for promotion outside of packaging department within the company

14 41%


48


Communications

Summary

This section dealt with how packaging departments communicated both internally and externally with other departments and different organizational levels.

The packaging departments relied heavily on informal communications. Meetings, dis-cussions, and emails were frequently used within departments; whereas printed memos, newsletters, and project status reports were circulated by less than half. Likewise, only 41% circulated a general status report to other departments. Upward communications also tended towards discussions, either through or outside the chain of command, rather than using more formal submission processes. Even in the essential communications issue of transferring practices amongst engineers, only half of the respondents had formal proce-dures covering these practices, instead of having informal discussions or collections of prior memos.

In keeping with packaging as a focal point for key company issues, 59% kept track of what is going on in other departments, and 91% used task teams where appropriate. 71% communicated with internal experts for help with issues involving governmental and en-vironmental effects on packaging.

Questions

39. How do packaging professionals within your organization communicate, keep up-dated, and share concerns with peers? (Check all that apply)

Almost all of the respondents used department staff meetings, informal discussions, and email to keep packaging people within the organization appraised of what is go-ing on or to share ideas or concerns. Slightly less than half used the more formal ap-proach of a packaging newsletter (either paper or electronic) or circulating project status reports. Only 44% used printed memos for internal communications: it would be interesting to see if this number declines over the next few years in favor of faster, less expensive, and more flexible electronic communications. Only one out of the eight electronics company respondents used printed internal memos within the de-partment.

Communications

49



Percentage

Packaging newsletter or written updates (print, email or intranet) 15 44%

Department conferences or staff meetings 31 91%

Informal discussions 32 94%

Email 32 94%

Printed memos 15 44%

Circulation of major project status reports to all professionals in the group 16 47%

40. Do you use or have any packaging newsletter or briefings for circulation to other departments?

Only 41% circulated a packaging report to other departments.


Yes 14 41%

No 20 59%

41. Do you monitor who is doing what at all operations?

59% of the respondents monitored in some detail what other operations are doing.


Yes 20 59%

No 14 41%

42. Do you have any UPWARD communication systems? (Check all that would typi-cally apply)

Most of the respondents chose two or three methods for upward communication. Dis-cussions with higher management was the most popular method, both through chan-nels or in direct conversations. Approximately one-third of the companies had formal roundtables with employees and management, and a quarter used some form of “sug-gestion box” system. Only 21% had a formalized suggestion system, with employees submitting problems and proposals to which management was required to formally respond.

Communications



Percentage

Suggestion box 9 26%

Formalized system of submitting problems or proposals, with formal re-sponse system 7 21%

Direct discussion with higher management, skipping levels 24 71%

Discussion with higher management through channels 21 62%

Formal “roundtables” to discuss issues with management 11 32%


43. Do you use task teams to address issues?

An overwhelming majority (91%) used task teams where appropriate.


Yes 31 91%

No 3 9%

44. How do you stay on top of regulatory or environmental issues? (Check one primary method)

As might be expected in a group of mostly multi-billion dollar companies, 71% of re-spondents used an in-house expert in another department to keep track of regula-tory/environmental issues. Another 15% used an outside expert and 15% assigned a professional within the department as the expert. Interestingly, 15% expected each packaging professional to keep track of all the various laws and regulation proposals.

Choices No. of Re-sponses Percentage

In-house expert in other department 24 71%

Expert outside the company 5 15%

Professional in our department is assigned to be the primary expert 5 15%

Each professional is expected to maintain expertise relating to their projects or areas

5 15%

Communications

51


45. How do you transfer best practices to other packaging professionals? (Check all that apply)

The majority of companies depended heavily on word-of-mouth and informal collec-tions of memos and individually adopted procedures to transfer their best practices. Only half had a set of formal written procedures to cover their important practices, with 35% providing some training sessions. It would be interesting to determine if those without a formal body of procedures have plans to implement them, or what ef-fects they think it has on their efficiency and consistency.


Percentage

Word of mouth 26 76%

Informal collections of memos and individual procedures 19 56%

Formal written procedures covering important practices 17 50%

Formal training sessions for new and existing professionals as required 12 35%


Other included intranet website, internal packaging conference, and an annual technology exchange con-ference.

52


Customer Focus

Summary

Packaging departments used primarily internal marketing and sales people to keep them informed of customer wants and needs. Three-quarters of respondents also depended on focus groups and consumer testing, although only about half initiated this testing.

Approximately two-thirds of the companies conducted this research for new products or packaging, but only about 40% used it for feedback on current packaging. Very few con-ducted these tests on a regular basis to determine how they are doing.

Questions

46. How do your packaging professionals learn of customer wants and needs? (Check all that apply)

All of the packaging respondents listed internal groups such as marketing and sales as a source of customer information. Three-quarters indicated that they used information from consumer testing or focus groups, but only about half said they initiated or re-quested this testing themselves.


Internal groups such as marketing or sales 34 100%

Focus groups and consumer testing requested or initiated by the packag-ing department

18 53%

Focus groups and consumer testing initiated by other departments, with packaging department participation

25 74%

Literature, seminars, and training provided by outside groups 12 35%

We develop packaging according to company requirements and don’t get involved directly in customer wants and needs

3 9%


47. Does your company conduct packaging reviews by customer focus groups? (Check all that apply)

Almost two-thirds of the companies used focus groups for new products and packag-ing, while 38% used them for feedback on specific existing packaging. Only 12% used focus groups on a regular schedule to keep current, and a quarter of the compa-nies said they rarely or never used them (half of this last group were in electronics).

Customer Focus

53



Percentage

New products and packaging only 22 65%

To obtain feedback on current packaging in order to identify opportunities in specific areas 13 38%

On a regular scheduled basis for key products in order to keep current on customer thought 4 12%

Rarely/never 8 24%

48. Are market studies conducted on packaging and customer feedback? (Check all that apply)

The answers for market studies were similar to those for focus groups. Sixty-eight percent used them for new products and packaging, whereas 41% used them for ex-isting packaging. Only 15% used them to review packaging on a regular basis, and again a quarter rarely or never used them at all.


New products and packaging only 23 68%

To obtain feedback on current packaging in order to identify opportunities in specific areas

14 41%

On a regular scheduled basis for key products in order to keep current on customer thought

5 15%

Rarely/never 8 24%

54


Other

Summary

Slightly over half of respondents (56%) stated that their companies contributed directly to packaging schools. Thirty-eight percent contributed to the Michigan State School of Packaging, and some companies contributed to the other schools.

Questions

49. Does your company contribute directly to packaging schools (money, time, equip-ment, etc.)?


Yes 19 56%

No 15 44%

50. Which schools of packaging/packaging departments do they contribute to?


None 15 44%

We contribute, but I don’t know which schools 1 3%

Rutgers School of Packaging 3 9%

Michigan State School of Packaging 13 38%

California Polytechnic University 2 6%

Indiana State University 0 0%

Rochester Institute of Technology 4 12%

University of Missouri-Rolla 0 0%

Clemson Packaging 4 12%

San Jose State Packaging 4 12%

University of Wisconsin – Stout Packaging 4 12%


Other was Dunwoody Institute.

Summary

55


A-1


Appendix A: Participating Companies

The following is a list of companies that participated in this survey.

3M Hewlett-Packard Co.

Amway Corp. IBM Corporation

Anheuser Busch, Inc. IBM Corporation (Corporate)

Becton Dickinson Inhale Therapeutic Systems

Best Foods Kellogg Company

Campbell Soup Co. Kraft Foods

Chef America Lexmark International, Inc.

Cisco Systems, Inc. Nabisco, Inc.

Colgate Palmolive Nestle - Prepared Foods Division

Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. Nestle USA-Corporate

Eastman Kodak Co. Nestle USA

General Mills Newell Office Products

Gerber Products Co. Ocean Spray Cranberries

H.J. Heinz Co. Perseco

Hewlett-Packard Co. The Coca-Cola Company

Colgate Palmolive The Gillette Co.

Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. The Scotts Company

Eastman Kodak Co. Vlasic Foods International

General Mills Welch Foods, Inc.

Gerber Products Co. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co.

H.J. Heinz Co.

A-3


Appendix B: PMC Benchmarking Study Survey


As applicable, please answer the following questions as they pertain to your packaging department and associated departments within the company.

Company Name:

Parent Company (if any):

Title:

Name of Department:

Direct Supervisor’s Title:

1. Annual wholesale dollar volume of parent company (select one):

§ 0-100 million § 101-500 million § 501 million – 1 billion § 1+ - 5 billion § 5+ billion

2. I am responding to this questionnaire on the following level with respect to my

corporation (select one): (Please select the level most applicable to your depart-ment)

o Corporate o Division o Product line(s) or other grouping within a division

3. Division or product lines within corporation covered in questionnaire:

__________________________________________________________________




4. Annual wholesale dollar volume of corporate, division, or product line(s) covered in this questionnaire (select one):

o 0- 1 million o 1+ -10 million o 10+ -50 million o 50+ -100 million o 101-500 million o 501+ million – 1 billion o 1+ - 5 billion o 5+ billion

5. Which best describes YOUR DEPARTMENT’S packaging function in the corpo-ration?

o Corporate HQ packaging function covering several divisions or entire corporation

o Division, brand group, or local packaging function within the corporation

6. What is the primary responsibility of your department? (Select one)

o Packaging Materials/Containers o Packaging Machinery o Both Packaging Materials/Containers and Machinery o Other

(specify)________________________________________________________

7. What is your primary responsibility? (Select one):

o Packaging Materials/Containers o Packaging Machinery o Both Packaging Materials/Containers and Machinery o Other

(specify)________________________________________________________


A-5


Company Information

8. Types of products packaged (please check all that apply):

o Retail o Bulk, institutional or industrial o Mail order or e-commerce special packaging o Food, beverage o Cosmetics, health & beauty aids o Medical devices or pharmaceuticals o Household chemicals o Hazardous materials o Hard goods, furniture o Electronics o Industrial, automotive parts or machinery o Other__________________________________________________________

9. Company’s general attitude toward packaging (please evaluate each statement):

Statement Always or Us u-

ally

Some-times

Rarely or

Never

We strive to be very innovative and in the forefront of new technol-ogy

Cutting and containing packaging costs are primary goals

Packaging is critical to the sale of our products

As long as the package protects the product and has no negatives, it is doing its job

The packaging department is very important in our company and is treated like a key player

Our company commits major development and capital money to packaging projects.

10. Which best describes your corporate and business unit structure?

o Regional – by country and/or regions within the U.S. and/or international o Product line or group of product lines o Product line or group of product lines, but with separate international business

unit(s) o Other

_______________________________________________________________

11. Does your company have global manufacturing and packaging operations? Yes______ No______





Packaging Department Fit in the Company Organization

12. Which statement best describes your department’s general reporting relationship? (Select one)

o Central packaging group at a corporate level o Central packaging group at a divisional level o Packaging group assigned to a business unit of several product lines o Packaging group assigned to a business unit of one product line o Individual packaging professionals assigned to product or project teams, with

no report into a separate packaging function

If you answered Central packaging group at a corporate or divisional level, does your

department also dedicate resources to specific business units or product lines?

Yes____ No_____

13. What department does your packaging group report to? (Select one)

o Corporate General Management – President, CEO or Executive VP o Division or Business Unit General Management (i.e., President, General

Manager) o Purchasing/ Materials Resources o Marketing/Brand Management o Engineering o Manufacturing/Plant Management o Research and Development/Technical Services o Quality Assurance/Quality Control o None – There is no separate packaging department – each individual is part of

a team o Other

_______________________________________________________________

14. When does packaging first get pulled into the process? (Please evaluate each statement in the table below).

Statement Always or Usually Sometimes Rarely or

Never

We initiate the new packaging concept ourselves

New product or package conception by other group

When the company commits to the project

First team or project major meeting

When the product is finalized

Close to product launch


A-7


15. How often does the packaging function work directly with the following depart-ments or groups? (Please evaluate each listing in the table below)

Department Always or Usually

Sometimes Rarely or Never

Purchasing/ Materials Resources

Marketing/Brand Management

Engineering

Manufacturing/Plant Management

Research and Development/Technical Services

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Outside Vendors

Government Agencies (Federal, State or local)

16. What are the roles and responsibilities of the packaging department?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Please state the mission and vision of your department:

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

17. Was this a previously prepared formally stated mission statement? Yes____ No____

18. Who determines strategy? (Choose the best answer):

o I do o The whole packaging department through discussion and consensus o The department head our Packaging group reports into o Upper management for the division or corporation




19. Please indicate on the following table if your department performs these func-tions. (Please evaluate each listing)

Projects Always or Usually

Sometimes Rarely or Never

Packaging Research (emerging technologies, exploratory)

New Package Development – new products

New Package Development – existing products

Packaging Line Extensions (new sizes or flavors with the same basic package design)


Cost savings, including alternate materials

Packaging System/ Machinery Development

New and alternate vendors

Maintenance

New or modified graphics

Packaging specification changes and maintenance

Plant support / Troubleshooting

Graphics specification and maintenance

Quality Assurance and ISO support


20. How is your department itself primarily organized?

o Product lines o Business units o Market segments o Packaging expertise o Geography o Project o Other

___________________________________________________________________

21. Has the packaging department reorganized or restructured in the last five years? Yes_____ No_____

22. Do you have an internal Packaging Council? Yes_____ No______


A-9


23. How would you say projects are managed in your department:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

24. Objectives are set, and professionals manage on their own to meet those objectives

o Overall objective, with frequent milestone checkpoints o Micro-managed

25. Is your packaging development process defined? Yes_____ No______

26. Do you use project management software as part of the process? If so, which one(s?)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

People

27. How many people are involved in the packaging department?

Job Function #

Management (no project responsibility)

Project leaders or engineers, working managers

Technical support staff (lab technicians, testing personnel, etc.)

Clerical support staff

Total employees in Packaging Department




28. How many professional packaging employees are there at company and district HQ?

__________________________________________________________________

How many at local operations areas such as production plants?

__________________________________________________________________

Who do local operations engineers report to?

o A. HQ outside their operations area (such as central packaging department) o B. Local operations management (such as the plant manager in their plant)

Which reporting setup do you think is most beneficial to the company?

A___ B____ About equal______

29. How do you determine staffing needs (check all that apply)

o Periodic reviews of current and anticipated projects vs. workload o Annual budget requires personnel justification o We maintain a core staff and hire consultants, temporaries or outside groups

for workload peaks o We use current staff and only reevaluate needs if we do not have enough

personnel to accomplish objectives o Other__________________________________________________________


A-11


30. How are packaging professionals evaluated and measured? (Check all that apply)

o Performance is judged against predetermined objectives o Ratings are competitive: The company gives us targets to rate a certain

percentage of our employees at each rating level o Formal reviews are given on a monthly___, quarterly____, semi-annual____,

or annual basis (check closest if applicable) o We use a peer to peer rating system, allowing peers to give ratings and

comments o We use a client rating system, allowing clients in other departments to give

ratings. o We informally___ or formally____ seek opinions from those outside the

department before giving ratings o Informal performance discussions are ongoing with employees o We have no formal method o Other__________________________________________________________

31. Education and background – Please put an X in each box that represents the educa-tional level of current employees or the level that would be required or preferred for new hires. For instance, you might currently have professionals at all levels, but require an Undergrad degree in Packaging and prefer a Master’s Degree in Packaging with an undergraduate degree in at least a technical area for new hires.

Current Pro-fessionals

Required New Hired Professionals

Preferred New Hired Professionals

Master’s Degree – Pkg.

Master’s Degree - Other

Undergrad Degree-Pkg.

Undergrad Degree – Technical/Non-pkg

Undergrad Degree - Other

Associate Degree/Non college training

No post HS degree – packaging experience

No post HS Degree




32. How many projects is your department handling? ____________________________________________________

How many projects does the typical engineer handle at one time? _______________________________________

Has this increased ____, decreased ____, or remained the same_____ over the la st year? (Select one)

33. If represented on a pie chart, what percentage of time does your department spend on (% should add to 100%)?

A) New packaging ____%

B) Support for existing packaging ____%

C) Other ____%

34. Are there any special rewards or motivationa l programs for packaging profession-

als? (Check all that apply)

o Monetary bonus or awards (other than regular pay increases) o Non-monetary compensation (time off, health club memberships, etc.) o Company recognition programs (Employee of the month, etc.) o Special awards for patents o Technical ladder non-management promotions (i.e., associate engineer, senior

engineer, etc.) o Raises are tied closely to performance o None o Other__________________________________________________________

35. Is technical training or professional improvement supported/funded by your com-pany? Yes____ No_____

If so, how often? (Select closest one)

o Once a year o Twice a year o Four times a year o Six to Twelve times a year o No set amount – approval based on specific program


A-13


36. Are people rewarded for taking risks (e.g., untried ideas or unknown technologies) even if they fail? (Select one)

o Always/Usually o Sometimes o Rarely/Never

37. How do you develop professional skills? (Check all that apply)

o In house formal training sessions o Outside courses and seminars o Industry trade shows (such as PackExpo) o Mentoring by more experienced professionals in the group o Purchase and availability of written materials and software for skill building o Learn by doing and experience o Other__________________________________________________________

38. How do you retain talent?

o Special rewards and motivational programs (such as listed in prior question) o Pay overall higher than industry average o Benefits overall higher than industry average o Numerous opportunities for promotion in Packaging Department o Numerous opportunities for promotion outside of Packaging Department

within the company o Other__________________________________________________________

Communications

39. How do packaging professionals within your organization communicate, keep up-dated, and share concerns with peers? (Check all that apply)

o Packaging newsletter or written updates (print, e-mail or intranet) o Department conferences or staff meetings o Informal discussions o E-mail o Printed memos o Circulation of major project status reports to all professionals in the group

40. Do you use or have any packaging newsletter or briefings for circulation to other departments? Yes____ No____




41. Do you monitor who is doing what at all operations? Yes_____ No_____

42. Do you have any UPWARD communication systems? (Check all that would typi-cally apply)

o Suggestion box o Formalized system of submitting problems or proposals, with formal response

system o Direct discussion with higher management, skipping levels o Discussion with higher management through channels o Formal “roundtables” to discuss issues with management Other______________________________________________________________

43. Do you use task teams to address issues? Yes_____ No_____

44. How do you stay on top of regulatory or environmental issues? (Check one pri-mary method)

o In house expert in other department o Expert outside the company o Professional in our department is assigned to be the primary expert o Each professional is expected to maintain expertise relating to their projects or

areas

45. How do you transfer best practices to other packaging professionals? (Check all that apply)

o Word of mouth o Informal collections of memos and individual procedures o Formal written procedures covering important practices o Formal training sessions for new and existing professionals as required o Other__________________________________________________________


A-15


Customer Focus

46. How do your packaging professionals learn of customer wants and needs? (Check all that apply)

o Internal groups such as Marketing or Sales o Focus groups and consumer testing requested or initiated by the Packaging

Department o Focus groups and consumer testing initiated by other departments, with

Packaging Department participation o Literature, seminars and training provided by outside groups o We develop packaging according to company requirements and don’t get

involved directly in customer wants and needs o Other___________________________________________________________

47. Does your company conduct packaging reviews by customer focus groups? (Check all that apply)

o New products and packaging only o To obtain feedback on current packaging in order to identify opportunities in

specific areas o On a regular scheduled basis for key products in order to keep current on

customer thought o Rarely/never

48. Are market studies conducted on packaging and customer feedback? (Check all that apply)

o New products and packaging only o To obtain feedback on current packaging in order to identify opportunities in

specific areas o On a regular scheduled basis for key products in order to keep current on

customer thought o Rarely/never




Other

49. Does your company contribute directly to packaging schools (money, time, equip-ment, etc.)? Yes_____ No_____

Which schools of packaging/packaging departments do they contribute to?

o None o We contribute, but I don’t know which schools o Rutgers School of Packaging o Michigan State School of Packaging o California Polytechnic University o Indiana State University o Rochester Institute of Technology o University of Missouri-Rolla o Clemson Packaging o San Jose State Packaging o University of Wisconsin – Stout Packaging o Other__________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this survey and contributing to this important industry bench-marking study!

o Please send me a copy of the summary of the benchmarking study when it is available

Send report by (select one):

o Mail o E-mail

Name:

Company:

Mailing Address:

City: State: Zip:

Email Address:

A-17


Appendix C. Sopheon/Teltech Team Members

Andrea Mandel, lead expert and principal author, was the principal author of the So-pheon/Teltech Benchmarking Study on Packaging performed in 1999. She is currently vice chairperson of the IOPP Consultants Council and is a member of the Discussion Fo-rum Advisory Board at PMMI’s Packexpo.com web site.

Ms. Mandel has been an independent packaging consultant with Andrea S. Mandel Asso-ciates since 1993. Prior to that, she worked as a packaging engineer and manager in five major companies, including foods, health and beauty aids, pharmaceuticals, household products and medical devices. In addition to developing packaging, she has written arti-cles for several packaging publications and given U.S. government-sponsored seminars in the former Soviet Union on packaging for the world economy. She has a bachelor of en-gineering degree in mechanical engineering from the City University of New York and a master of science degree in packaging science from Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Charlie Pittman, MBA, Sopheon/Teltech Senior Project Manager, coordinated the re-search project. Mr. Pittman was responsible for the final report as well as on-time deliv-ery. Mr. Pittman has a MBA in international business from the George Washington University. A current member of the Socie ty of Competitive Intelligence Professionals, Mr. Pittman joined Sopheon/Teltech in 1992.

References

R-18 PMC Benchmarking Study Survey Sopheon/Teltech Research Services February 20, 2001 2001 Sopheon Corporation.


Appendix D. Post Survey Comments

The following summary comments were provided by PMC members after review of the report:

packaging department benchmarking study - pmmi

Documents