Box Last Packaging: Not more complicated, just different

In a nutshell: With Box First, the carton comes first; with Box Last, it is only created once the order has been picked and measured. The goal: the right carton size for every order, usually without any filling material. For a long time, Box Last was considered difficult for complex multi-item orders, but the technology has advanced enormously. Oliver Betzer from CMC Packaging Automation explains in the Webinar what changes in the process and where the limits lie. And why a machine alone does not make you PPWR-compliant. He also shows how much volume, material and shipping costs can be saved.

What is the difference between Box First and Box Last?

Oliver: Box First is the established, classic, familiar approach. I have an order and roughly know how large the carton needs to be. A smart WMS tells me that, or the experienced packer at a mid-sized company has a feel for it. I then take the right carton, pick into it, fill it with filling material if needed, seal it and apply the label.

Box Last is a different, more modern philosophy. I pick first and assemble my order. At a defined interface I hand this pile, let us call it that, to a machine. It measures length, width and height and produces exactly one matching carton. The vision is to always have the right carton size for every order. In most cases this eliminates filling material entirely.

Box First requires little initial investment and was particularly well suited to complex multi-item orders. Complex means: something round, something angular, a cup, something hollow. Take a classic e-commerce order at Christmas: a bottle of shampoo, two books, a CD and a bottle of wine in one parcel. However, I am dependent on the quality of the master data.

With Box Last, the machine must first measure the order, usually on an infeed conveyor. If the pile consists of tennis balls, it is hard to measure and they roll away on the belt. That is why Box Last did not work well with such orders for a long time. Technologically, however, an enormous amount has changed here. We use, for example, a special container called the Vary-Tote, which keeps the order together from picking through to packaging. Try packaging 20 loose tennis balls on a traditional machine: it fails. With the Vary-Tote nothing can roll away, I need no master data for the balls, and the carton has no void space at the end.

Box Last changes workflows. What does that mean in practice?

Oliver: It does not become more complicated, just different. And different means complex in many operations when you want to change something you have done successfully for 30 years. The difference lies in picking: I no longer pick into an open shipping carton but into an intermediate container or into the Vary-Tote. This actually saves a touchpoint.

I need to bring the items order-by-order to a defined interface, that is, to the automatic packaging machine. Whether that machine is ours or a competitor's is completely irrelevant. If the order is already in the Vary-Tote, no human intervention is needed. I do need, however, transport logistics for the picked orders and a handover point, a kind of marshalling yard.

Box First has similar considerations when I partially automate carton erection in advance. I then need to bring those cartons to the staff, organise transport routes and manage timing carefully. For high order volumes I need sequencing to ensure the right carton always reaches the right order. Anyone looking to implement something should therefore first examine all processes and material flows in detail. This is the subject of solid advance planning.

Who benefits from Box Last, and where are the limits?

Oliver: Every automation has restrictions, and the classic ones are dimensions. If a customer wants to package fluorescent tubes 1.20 metres long, that cannot be done efficiently in such a system. There are hardly any vendors who do that fully automatically using the Box Last method. I handle that with Box First. The same applies to heavy cartons beyond 25, 30 or 40 kilograms.

A borderline area is complex multi-item orders. Solutions exist, but not for every customer. The investment is not insignificant and depends on how many parcels I pack per day and how much space I have. Those with smaller volumes but complex multi-item orders are probably still well served by Box First.

An example: I order two or three flat serving platters and two cups. In a Box First system I look for a carton to fit the base area of the platters, place the cups on top and fill the gaps with filling material. Even with Box Last, the space beside the cups remains; I cannot eliminate it. On a machine with a simple infeed belt I would have to place the paper cushioning precisely alongside without anything slipping. That is not very practical. In the Vary-Tote I place the platters at the bottom, the cups in a corner and the filling material beside them. Everything stays fixed and is packed together.

I can only recommend engaging with packaging automation in a completely open-minded way. A small analysis does not cost much time and above all costs no money. It yields insights into process efficiency and into reserves in material, volume and perhaps staffing. From around 1,000 units per day it is often worth taking a closer look. Automation cannot solve everything, but ignoring the topic entirely I consider a mistake.

Does a Box Last machine make me PPWR-compliant, and what does it deliver financially?

Oliver: Certainly not. The PPWR goes much further. But I am taking very large steps in the right direction. In summary, the PPWR has four and a half pillars. First, recyclable materials: the rules are being tightened, and tape may potentially become a problem in future. Second, volume, which everyone is talking about because it is genuinely new and a dramatic change.

Third, reuse, which tends to be forgotten. Cartons that can be resealed and have a secondary use can be an advantage. Fourth, labelling. Packaging automation can take this task off my hands via a QR code on the shipping label. Behind the QR code is my PPWR database, containing details such as the corrugated board manufacturer and compliance information.

The half pillar hovers over everything, and this is where the grey area lies: material reduction. Many companies, for example, cut down an oversized carton, fold the flaps over and tape it up. This reduces the volume in one dimension. At the end consumer, however, the carton springs open again after being opened, and they are left disposing of a large carton. Whether this will become a PPWR issue is not yet entirely clear. Many experts say, however, that it contradicts the goal of the PPWR.

A Box Last machine reduces volume natively in all three dimensions. We seal the cartons with hotmelt, for example; tape is no longer required at all. In addition, the system supplies data such as weight, size or surface area of the carton used, for internal statistics or external communication.

Financially this must be calculated individually for each customer. We do have many projects, however, in which we save 30 to 40 percent of volume, cubically. This has two effects. First, I need far less corrugated board, and that alone has risen by 10 to 12 percent in the index this year. Second, and this is often overlooked, I can negotiate with my parcel service provider.

If a truck currently collects three times a week and the volume reduction means two collections suffice, purchasing can speak to the provider: this must be worth something to you. E