Packaging Automation Benchmark Study, Part 2: Machine builders influence, interpret packagers’ needs
Packaging is big business—and it's growing. Control Engineering and Packaging Digest set to investigate this dynamic market through the Packaging Automation Benchmark Study, a three-part, year-long research project conducted by Reed Research Group. This comprehensive view of the state of packaging automation reveals the technology, market drivers and business issues affecting packagers...
|
Packaging is big business—and it’s growing. Control Engineering and Packaging Digest set to investigate this dynamic market through the Packaging Automation Benchmark Study, a three-part, year-long research project conducted by Reed Research Group. This comprehensive view of the state of packaging automation reveals the technology, market drivers and business issues affecting packagers, machine builders, and system integrators.
This is Volume 2 of the Packaging Automation Benchmark Study, focusing on packaging machine builders and the state of the market from their point of view. These machine builders have a unique role in the market, both influencing and interpreting the needs of packagers and the offerings of automation component and software vendors. In Volume 1, published in April 2008, research results came from the packagers themselves. In Volume 3, research will focus on the system integrator community, providing insight into how their interaction with both packagers and machine builders is driving innovation. A key focal point for that study is a view of technology adoption and strategic use of data acquisition. Survey outreach will begin in late fall 2008, with results published in December 2008.
Complete research results, as well as Webcasts, podcasts and other resources based on the research can be found online. Access all at www.controleng.com/automationresearch or www.packagingdigest.com/automationresearch .
| Top 5 markets represented | |
| • Food | 51% |
| • Beverages | 47% |
| • Pharmaceuticals | 38% |
| • Personal care/cosmetics | 36% |
| • Household chemicals/products | 36% |
| • Machinery, electronic equipment | 31% |
| Number of people employed by company | |
| • Under 20 | 12% |
| • 20– 99 | 26% |
| • 100– 249 | 24% |
| • 250– 499 | 11% |
| • 500– 999 | 10% |
| • 1,000 or more | 17% |
| 2007 sales volume | |
| • Under $10 million | 25% |
| • $10 million – $24.9 million | 24% |
| • $25 million to $49.9 million | 12% |
| • $50 million to $249.9 million | 15% |
| • $250 million to $999.9 million | 13% |
| • Over $1 billion | 12% |
| Location of corporate headquarters | |
| • United States | 78% |
| • Europe | 13% |
| • Canada | 3% |
| • Asia | 3% |
| • Central or South America | 2% |
| • Other (please specify) | 2% |
| • Mexico | 1% |
| Locations where OEMs have production | |
| • >United States | 90% |
| • Europe | 31% |
| • Asia | 25% |
| • Mexico | 13% |
| • Canada | 12% |
| • Central or South America | 9% |
| Typical type of packaging performed by your machines | |
| • Flexible packaging | 54% |
| • Cartons | 45% |
| • Labeling/labels | 36% |
| • Shrink wrap | 30% |
| • Cases | 28% |
| • Folding carton | 28% |
| • Rigid plastic | 26% |
| • Bottles (plastic) | 24% |
| • Bottles (glass) | 21% |
| • Cans | 19% |
| • Stretch wrap | 19% |
| • Blister Pack | 15% |
| • Tube | 15% |
| • Clamshell | 13% |
| • Other | 9% |
| Ethernet protocols supported | |
| • EtherNet/IP | 95% |
| • Modbus TCP | 29% |
| • ProfiNet | 24% |
| • SERCOS III | 23% |
| • EtherCAT | 15% |
| • PowerLink | 10% |
| • Foundation Fieldbus | 8% |
| • Other | 4% |
| With whom do you collaborate on new packaging machine designs | |
| • Customers’ packaging engineers/designers | 73% |
| • Automation suppliers | 54% |
| • Internal packaging engineers/designers | 51% |
| In-house system integrators | 40% |
| • Materials suppliers | 37% |
| • Other OEMs | 31% |
| • Contract system integrators | 26% |
| • No one, do not collaborate | 7% |
| Typical build time for new equipment (from contract signing to acceptance test signoff) | |
| 1– 3 months | 30% |
| 4– 6 months | 40% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 24% |
| More than 1 year | 5% |
| Standard | Optional | Total | |
| Instrumentation and control components | |||
| • Components and connectors | 74% | 13% | 87% |
| • Safety | 76% | 10% | 86% |
| • Process sensors | 62% | 16% | 78% |
| • Instrumentation and analysis | 49% | 26% | 75% |
| • Vision systems | 21% | 54% | 75% |
| Application and programming software | |||
| • Programming applications (such as HMI) | 54% | 21% | 75% |
| • Data historian/data analytics | 25% | 36% | 61% |
| • Enterprise integration and analysis | 16% | 36% | 52% |
| • ERP | 15% | 24% | 39% |
| • MES | 15% | 23% | 38% |
| Motors, drives and motion control | |||
| • Motors | 80% | 8% | 88% |
| • AC drives | 73% | 12% | 85% |
| • Servos | 70% | 13% | 83% |
| • DC drives | 56% | 23% | 79% |
| • Steppers | 60% | 19% | 79% |
| Machine and embedded controllers | |||
| • PLCs | 69% | 17% | 86% |
| • Safety | 73% | 10% | 83% |
| • Discrete sensors and readers | 56% | 26% | 82% |
| • PACs (controller integrating motion and logic) | 41% | 28% | 69% |
| • Embedded/board-level controllers | 43% | 24% | 67% |
| • Multi-axis motion controllers | 39% | 28% | 67% |
| • Robotics | 27% | 37% | 64% |
| Networks, communications hardware, software | |||
| • I/O products and cabling | 69% | 15% | 84% |
| • Safety | 66% | 10% | 76% |
| • Network software and diagnostics | 40% | 32% | 72% |
| • Switches, routers and gateways | 43% | 27% | 70% |
| • Wireless solutions | 15% | 43% | 58% |
| Process and advanced control | |||
| • Electronic work instructions | 34% | 31% | 65% |
| • Barcode | 22% | 41% | 63% |
| • Advanced control (e.g., simulation) | 23% | 29% | 52% |
| • Process and batch control | 32% | 28% | 60% |
| • RFID | 11% | 36% | 47% |
| HMI and industrial PCs | |||
| • HMI hardware | 57% | 20% | 77% |
| • HMI software | 52% | 22% | 74% |
| • Industrial PCs | 40% | 34% | 74% |
| OEMs Agree | Users Agree | |
| Our customers require increased flexibility in packaging systems | 53% | 23% |
| Automated packaging lines are critical to maximizing our customers’ capacity | 56% | 43% |
| In the next five years, sustainability will become a major driver for automation of packaging lines. | 38% | 37% |
| Global availability and international standardization of packaging lines are essential to packaging end users. | 20% | 26% |
| Customers see packaging machine flexibility and integrated automation as a key competitive advantage. | 44% | 51% |
| Our customers place a high value on packaging operations as a strategic competitive advantage | 36% | 51% |
| Our customers should take greater advantage of flexibility in packaging systems to improve time to market | 38% | 40% |
| Top three reasons to automate packaging processes | |
| OEMs say | |
| • Control labor costs | 77% |
| • Gain production efficiencies | 52% |
| • Gain competitive edge | 28% |
| Users say | |
| • Control labor costs | 81% |
| • Gain production efficiencies | 74% |
| • Gain competitive edge | 48% |
| Main benefits expected when deciding which processes to automate | |
| OEMs say | |
| • Removing production bottlenecks | 49% |
| • Access machine diagnostic data | 40% |
| • Ability to access production data | 39% |
| • Recipe-driven/tool-less changeover | 38% |
| Users say | |
| • Ability to access production data | 48% |
| • Recipe-driven/tool-less changeover | 44% |
| • Ability to access diagnostic data | 42% |
| Percentage of customers who specify brands of controls | |
| Less than 10% | 37% |
| 10% – 49% | 36% |
| 50% – 74% | 11% |
| 75% – 89% | 11% |
| 90% or more | 6% |
| Percentage of customers accepting alternative recommendations | |
| Always | 8% |
| Frequently | 37% |
| Sometimes | 52% |
| Never | 4% |
| OEMs perception of the value customers place on being involved in selection of components | |
| Great value | 23% |
| Moderate value | 53% |
| Little value | 19% |
| No value | 5% |
| OEMs can use the criteria shown to determine the Key Buying Factors packagers consider in a purchase decision. Multivariant analysis like this allows a business to consider both importance and satisfaction on a number of factors, giving an OEM a much better idea of where they can direct their marketing efforts. |
ONLINE extraOther articles in Packaging Automation Benchmark Study, Part 2
:
-
Packagers speak out
-
Shifting safety responsibilities
-
It’s a small world for OEMs
Also read: Packaging Automation Benchmark Study, Part 1
Research Methodology
Data for the Packaging Digest and Control Engineering 2008 Packaging Automation Benchmark Study was gathered over a two-week period in the beginning of June 2008. Respondents came from the subscriber base of the following publications’ print magazines and E-newsletters:
-
Packaging Digest
-
Control Engineering
-
Plant Engineering
-
Converting
E-mail invitations were sent to the subscribers inviting them to complete a Web-based questionnaire. Over 3,900 industry members responded to the invitation for the second phase of the study. Respondents were qualified as to their company’s role in packaging, with 198 respondents who meet the qualifications as an Equipment Supplier/OEM. Another 1,046 respondents met our qualifications as purchasers of packaging equipment and participated in a supplemental study. All results are posted in aggregate, and individual results are kept strictly confidential.
Key Findings
Business Demographics
-
19% said their company’s revenue is totally derived from the packaging industry.
-
Almost 60% of OEMs derive less than half their business from the packaging industry.
-
An overwhelming majority of OEMs believe packaging will stay the same or grow in terms of its overall share of their company’s business in the next five years.
-
Those companies currently deriving 25% to 75% of their business from the packaging industry are expecting the highest growth.
-
The United States, followed by Europe and Canada, are currently the top markets for packaging among respondents.
-
In the future, respondents expect the most growth to occur in Asia, followed by the United States and Europe.
Machine design and functionality
-
The most typical types of packaging performed on the machines built are flexible packaging, cartons, and labeling/labels.
-
The most common type of packaging equipment made by OEMs is package handling, conveying, and cartoning.
-
Packaging equipment types expected to grow most over the next 5 years include product inspection, robotics, and form/fill/seal.
-
OEMs are incorporating the following types of automation most in their machines:
– Instrumentation and controls
– Motors, drives, motion control
– Machine and embedded controllers
– HMIs and industrial PCs. -
Designing new packaging machines is a highly collaborative process, with 73% of machine builders collaborating with customers’ packaging engineers, 54% collaborating with automation suppliers, and 51% collaborating with other departments internally.
-
OEMs say there are two main reasons end-users are not currently using all the automation features their machines offer: knowledge level of the workforce (77%), and automation features exceed customer needs (57%).
-
The majority of equipment manufacturers mention they are addressing this problem by offering onsite training, and creating easy to read manuals.
OEMs and end users disagree most in these areas
-
Currently, most OEMs customers are not too involved in specifying brands of automation controls. In addition, OEMs state their customers are willing to accept some level of alternative recommendation.
-
OEMs believe that automated packaging lines are more likely to be critical to maximizing customer capacity, while end users are less likely to agree with this.
-
OEMs think customers place less emphasis on the competitive advantage that integrated automation can offer, while the end user survey says they value the competitive advantage.
-
OEMs believe their customers don’t place much value on packaging operations as a key strategic advantage, while end users have indicated that they do.
-
Most OEMs customers do not specify brands of automation controls. Among packagers who do specify brands, it is less likely they will accept an alternative recommendation. They also put greater value on being involved in the selection of components.
Research Methodology
Data for the Packaging Digest and Control Engineering 2008 Packaging Automation Benchmark Study was gathered over a two-week period in the beginning of June 2008. Respondents came from the subscriber base of the following publications’ print magazines and E-newsletters:
-
Packaging Digest
-
Control Engineering
-
Plant Engineering
-
Converting
E-mail invitations were sent to the subscribers inviting them to complete a Web-based questionnaire. Over 3,900 industry members responded to the invitation for the second phase of the study. Respondents were qualified as to their company’s role in packaging, with 198 respondents who meet the qualifications as an Equipment Supplier/OEM. Another 1,046 respondents met our qualifications as purchasers of packaging equipment and participated in a supplemental study. All results are posted in aggregate, and individual results are kept strictly confidential.
Research Methodology
Data for the Packaging Digest and Control Engineering 2008 Packaging Automation Benchmark Study was gathered over a two-week period in the beginning of June 2008. Respondents came from the subscriber base of the following publications’ print magazines and E-newsletters:
-
Packaging Digest
-
Control Engineering
-
Plant Engineering
-
Converting
E-mail invitations were sent to the subscribers inviting them to complete a Web-based questionnaire. Over 3,900 industry members responded to the invitation for the second phase of the study. Respondents were qualified as to their company’s role in packaging, with 198 respondents who meet the qualifications as an Equipment Supplier/OEM. Another 1,046 respondents met our qualifications as purchasers of packaging equipment and participated in a supplemental study. All results are posted in aggregate, and individual results are kept strictly confidential.
Research Methodology
Data for the Packaging Digest and Control Engineering 2008 Packaging Automation Benchmark Study was gathered over a two-week period in the beginning of June 2008. Respondents came from the subscriber base of the following publications’ print magazines and E-newsletters:
-
Packaging Digest
-
Control Engineering
-
Plant Engineering
-
Converting
E-mail invitations were sent to the subscribers inviting them to complete a Web-based questionnaire. Over 3,900 industry members responded to the invitation for the second phase of the study. Respondents were qualified as to their company’s role in packaging, with 198 respondents who meet the qualifications as an Equipment Supplier/OEM. Another 1,046 respondents met our qualifications as purchasers of packaging equipment and participated in a supplemental study. All results are posted in aggregate, and individual results are kept strictly confidential.
Research Methodology
Data for the Packaging Digest and Control Engineering 2008 Packaging Automation Benchmark Study was gathered over a two-week period in the beginning of June 2008. Respondents came from the subscriber base of the following publications’ print magazines and E-newsletters:
-
Packaging Digest
-
Control Engineering
-
Plant Engineering
-
Converting
E-mail invitations were sent to the subscribers inviting them to complete a Web-based questionnaire. Over 3,900 industry members responded to the invitation for the second phase of the study. Respondents were qualified as to their company’s role in packaging, with 198 respondents who meet the qualifications as an Equipment Supplier/OEM. Another 1,046 respondents met our qualifications as purchasers of packaging equipment and participated in a supplemental study. All results are posted in aggregate, and individual results are kept strictly confidential.
Research Methodology
Data for the Packaging Digest and Control Engineering 2008 Packaging Automation Benchmark Study was gathered over a two-week period in the beginning of June 2008. Respondents came from the subscriber base of the following publications’ print magazines and E-newsletters:
-
Packaging Digest
-
Control Engineering
-
Plant Engineering
-
Converting
E-mail invitations were sent to the subscribers inviting them to complete a Web-based questionnaire. Over 3,900 industry members responded to the invitation for the second phase of the study. Respondents were qualified as to their company’s role in packaging, with 198 respondents who meet the qualifications as an Equipment Supplier/OEM. Another 1,046 respondents met our qualifications as purchasers of packaging equipment and participated in a supplemental study. All results are posted in aggregate, and individual results are kept strictly confidential.
Key Findings
Business Demographics
-
19% said their company’s revenue is totally derived from the packaging industry.
-
Almost 60% of OEMs derive less than half their business from the packaging industry.
-
An overwhelming majority of OEMs believe packaging will stay the same or grow in terms of its overall share of their company’s business in the next five years.
-
Those companies currently deriving 25% to 75% of their business from the packaging industry are expecting the highest growth.
-
The United States, followed by Europe and Canada, are currently the top markets for packaging among respondents.
-
In the future, respondents expect the most growth to occur in Asia, followed by the United States and Europe.
Machine design and functionality
-
The most typical types of packaging performed on the machines built are flexible packaging, cartons, and labeling/labels.
-
The most common type of packaging equipment made by OEMs is package handling, conveying, and cartoning.
-
Packaging equipment types expected to grow most over the next 5 years include product inspection, robotics, and form/fill/seal.
-
OEMs are incorporating the following types of automation most in their machines:
– Instrumentation and controls
– Motors, drives, motion control
– Machine and embedded controllers
– HMIs and industrial PCs. -
Designing new packaging machines is a highly collaborative process, with 73% of machine builders collaborating with customers’ packaging engineers, 54% collaborating with automation suppliers, and 51% collaborating with other departments internally.
-
OEMs say there are two main reasons end-users are not currently using all the automation features their machines offer: knowledge level of the workforce (77%), and automation features exceed customer needs (57%).
-
The majority of equipment manufacturers mention they are addressing this problem by offering onsite training, and creating easy to read manuals.
OEMs and end users disagree most in these areas
-
Currently, most OEMs customers are not too involved in specifying brands of automation controls. In addition, OEMs state their customers are willing to accept some level of alternative recommendation.
-
OEMs believe that automated packaging lines are more likely to be critical to maximizing customer capacity, while end users are less likely to agree with this.
-
OEMs think customers place less emphasis on the competitive advantage that integrated automation can offer, while the end user survey says they value the competitive advantage.
-
OEMs believe their customers don’t place much value on packaging operations as a key strategic advantage, while end users have indicated that they do.
-
Most OEMs customers do not specify brands of automation controls. Among packagers who do specify brands, it is less likely they will accept an alternative recommendation. They also put greater value on being involved in the selection of components.
Do you have experience and expertise with the topics mentioned in this content? You should consider contributing to our CFE Media editorial team and getting the recognition you and your company deserve. Click here to start this process.
