Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Automated Wrappers: Juice vs. the Squeeze?

Automated Wrappers:
It would be great to have a cost effective automated wrapper for lumber and wood products with a zero defect tolerance. While there have been a limited number of companies who have put in automated systems for packaging bulk items, the truth of the matter is, that automated wrappers have historically only been a mess for companies in the wood product industries. The issue comes down to limits in plastics, limits in sizing, but more importantly the ability to provide a cost effective packaging requirement with limited defects. Changing out roll-stock on an automated line and consistency in packaging quality has not surpassed the ability for Joe Blow on the packaging line to effectively apply wrap or a cover.  But the most important issue with automated wrapping machinery deals with the outcome of a down automated wrapping machine. This brief post will examine the effectiveness of an automated wrapper vs. the end-line packaging team or individual who has been wrapping lumber by hand.

It would be great to have a cost effective automated wrapper for lumber and wood products with a zero defect tolerance...
but is that possible?

A few years ago there was a mill in the Pacific Northwest that had put in an automated packaging machine on their sawmilling line. The results: an expensive piece of machinery, with a specific dedicated plastic requirement, with a reduction of one employee, though inconsistency in quality packaging (this mill has since taken out the machine). To further detail these areas, a cost-benefit- analysis needs to be completed on the value of a piece of machinery that automates the wrapping.

 A new machine in the packaging line still requires an individual to run the machine, or at the very least monitor the package and occasionally change the roll stock of film. If the effort is to reduce employee cost, this approach is especially questionable in a section of production line that requires one or two individuals at most. While a machine does have the possibility of packaging items faster, at this point in time, the output of mills does not exceed the ability of one or two packagers to wrap a load of lumber before the next load is run through the line. In the cases where lines have temporary increases in output where two employees are having difficulty keeping up with production in packaging stations, a third employee can be added temporarily for assistance…I have never seen more than two on a packaging line for any long period of time. Of course a machine will take the place of one or two employees, but at what cost? Let’s look further.  

The plastic becomes a dedicated necessity. With automated packaging machines, the plastic needed is only able to be purchased from a limited number (if not one) plastic company. In nearly all cases, the automated machine sold to a mill is done so by a plastic company rather than a machine company. Why? The goal is to require mills to rely solely on the plastic company for their plastic source. It seems extremely difficult to effectively analyze the pay-off on the purchase of a new machine without considering the plastic costs that parallel machine use; plastic prices will never be guaranteed beyond a year (at the very most) due to the reliance on oil prices. Who is to say the plastic company selling the film with the automated wrapper will not ‘tell you’ the price of film has gone up and your new price is substantially higher. Upon purchasing the machine and working it into your line, you now have an absolute need of the associated poly to run on that machine. Usually this is extruded polyethylene, from a single supplier. What is to stop you from being overpriced on your film after purchasing the machine?

The most important issue with adding an automated wrapper to your production line is related to both quality of packaging and machine reliability.

The most important issue with adding an automated wrapper to your production line is related to both quality of packaging and machine reliability.  These are two areas which need heavy consideration. Will the machine have consistency in packaging quality? What happens when the package fails to apply properly (how many variables are inputs to the completion of a solid package)? When the production line is going full speed and then the packaging line goes down, what are the effects (a traffic jam of lumber)? These are all risks that need to be weighed against the constants of two packaging gurus named something like Jack and John, who happened to be equipped with staple guns and a good sense of humor. The stock film also does not allow for properly wrapping variable changes to board feet or pallet width changes in-line.

We are not suggesting that automated packaging systems are not a good idea for the lumber and wood industries. They are a great idea. They just have not worked in the past and they are expensive compared to the associated risk to productivity/output. Rarely does one want to be 'stuck' with a single supplier without the option of going somewhere else for plastic roll stock. No one wants a "down" line of production due to a packaging machine failure or malfunction...can you imagine your customers not receiving their order because the new packaging machine that was supposed to be a more efficient way to package stopped working correctly...

No comments:

Post a Comment