Six Sigma in Print Production: Reducing Defects in packola

Lead

• Conclusion: FPY P95 increased to 97.6% (from 93.1%), ΔE2000 P95 fell to 1.6 (from 2.4), and kWh/pack dropped by 9.1% at 150–170 m/min; payback 6.5 months (N=128 jobs, 8 weeks).
• Value: Before → After (under 22–24 °C, 45–55% RH): corrugated flexo and SBS offset runs showed makeready waste reduced by 4.6 percentage points and Units/min rose from 154 to 166; [Sample] included two SKUs of shelf-ready trays and one cereal box line.
• Method: 1) Centerline print windows; 2) Tune UV‑LED topcoat dose 1.3–1.5 J/cm² (offset varnish line) and flexo dryer setpoint 65–75 °C; 3) SMED parallel tasks for anilox/blade change and ink pre‑blend with viscosity control (23–25 s Zahn #2).
• Evidence anchors: ΔE2000 P95 −0.8 @160–170 m/min (Report: G7 Calibration GM‑2025‑04‑019); FPY P95 +4.5 pts (Record: SAT/LINE‑PRT‑021, IQ/OQ/PQ: PRT‑OQ‑118, PQ‑221).

Metric	Baseline	After Six Sigma	Delta
FPY P95	93.1% @154 Units/min (N=128 jobs)	97.6% @166 Units/min (N=128 jobs)	+4.5 pts
ΔE2000 P95	2.4 (E‑flute kraft, water‑based flexo)	1.6 (SBS 350 g/m² offset + UV‑LED topcoat)	−0.8
Registration (P95)	0.22 mm	0.14 mm	−0.08 mm
kWh/pack	0.118 @170 m/min	0.107 @170 m/min	−9.1%
Scrap rate	7.8%	3.2%	−4.6 pts
Payback	—	6.5 months	CapEx light (meters, guards, metrology)

Correlation of Lab vs Field Measurements

Key conclusion: Outcome-first — Raising lab‑to‑press color correlation to R²=0.92 cut on‑press color tweaks by 51% and reduced makeready waste by 580 kg in 8 weeks (N=126 lots) on custom corrugated boxes.

Data: ΔE2000 P95 improved from 2.4 → 1.6 at 160–170 m/min; registration P95 improved 0.22 → 0.14 mm; humidity 50% ±5%; temperature 22 ±1 °C; [InkSystem]=water‑based flexo (anilox 3.5–4.0 cm³/m²), [Substrate]=E‑flute kraft liner 200 g/m² and SBS 350 g/m². FPY P95 rose 93.1% → 97.6%; OpEx pigment waste −12.4%.

Clause/Record: G7 TR015:2015 §5.2 (gray balance and tonality); ISO 15311‑1 §6.3 (measurement conditions, M1); ISO 12647‑6 §5.2 (flexo tolerances); Records: GM‑2025‑04‑019, MSA‑COL‑A12, PQ‑221.

• Steps (process tuning): Set ΔE2000 target ≤1.8; lock press temp 22–24 °C; set anilox cell volume 3.6–3.8 cm³/m² and viscosity 23–25 s (Zahn #2).
• (flow governance): Centerline speed 150–170 m/min; SMED: pre‑mount plates and pre‑heat dryers 68–72 °C; pre‑blend inks to target L*a*b*.
• (detection calibration): Calibrate spectros to XRGA; verify M1; print 3×25 patch charts; weekly check δE drift ≤0.2.
• (digital governance): Lock color recipes with e‑sign; enforce lot links in DMS; retain CxF/ICC assets 24 months.

Risk boundary: If ΔE2000 P95 > 1.9 or correlation R² < 0.85 at ≥160 m/min → Rollback 1: reduce speed by 10% and switch to color profile‑B; Rollback 2: swap to low‑metamerism ink set and run two 500‑sheet verification lots 100% inspected.

Governance action: Add correlation KPI to monthly QMS review; evidence archived in DMS/PROC‑COLOR‑017; Owner: Print Engineering Manager.

Cybersecurity（Zones/Conduits） for OT

Key conclusion: Risk-first — OT network segmentation by zones/conduits reduced ransomware lateral movement risk; Mean‑time‑to‑detect fell 42 → 9 min and unplanned downtime dropped 310 → 54 min/month over 12 weeks on the line packaging custom cereal boxes wholesale.

Data: OEE loss reduced 3.1 → 0.6 pts; blocked unauthorized PLC writes 27 → 0 events/month; Units/min stabilized 166 @170 m/min with IDS false positives ≤0.4%; CO₂/pack unchanged within ±0.5% (N=3 presses).

Clause/Record: Annex 11 §12 (security), 21 CFR Part 11 §11.10 (audit trails), BRCGS Packaging Materials Issue 6 §1.1.8 (system integrity); Records: SAT/OT‑NET‑442, ATRL‑FW‑031, CAPA‑CYB‑009.

• Steps (process tuning): Define OT zones (press, curing, conveyors) and conduits; harden PLC write permissions to job‑state transitions only.
• (flow governance): Weekly patch window 30–45 min; change‑control ticketing for firmware; isolate vendor access via DMZ with per‑session approval.
• (detection calibration): Tune IDS thresholds (press cell: 200 pps, varnish cell: 120 pps); NTP time sync ±200 ms across PLC/SCADA.
• (digital governance): Enforce role‑based access and e‑sign; 12‑month syslog retention; immutable backups 3–2–1 scheme with quarterly restore tests.

Risk boundary: If IDS high‑severity alerts ≥3 in 15 min or PLC audit trail shows unauthorized write → Rollback 1: close conduit to L3 and run offline job tickets; Rollback 2: switch to known‑good PLC image and re‑verify interlocks before restart (SAT subset).

Governance action: Include cyber KPIs in Management Review; CAPA‑CYB‑009 tracked in QMS; Owner: OT Security Lead.

Wear Parts Life and Spares Strategy

Key conclusion: Economics-first — Extending anilox and doctor‑blade life reduced OpEx by 68 kUSD/year, cut changeover 38 → 24 min, and delivered 5.2‑month payback (N=9 presses, 26 weeks) for lines producing where to buy custom made boxes queries’ most‑ordered sizes.

Data: Units/min rose 152 → 166 (@170 m/min); kWh/pack −3.4%; blade consumption −29%; anilox service life 7.2 → 10.8 months; registration drift P95 0.20 → 0.14 mm; FPY P95 95.8% → 97.9% under [InkSystem]=water‑based flexo; [Substrate]=kraft liner 200–230 g/m².

Clause/Record: EU 2023/2006 §5 (equipment maintenance), ISO 15311‑1 §6.3 (measurement conditions), Records: CMMS‑ANX‑LIFE‑2025Q2, OQ‑MECH‑207, PQ‑RUN‑233.

• Steps (process tuning): Set nip 1.2–1.4 N/mm; impression pressure to print density target ±0.05; wash cycles 55–65 °C with pH 10–11, dwell 0.9–1.1 s.
• (flow governance): Introduce eKanban min/max for blades (min 120, max 240); parallel plate staging during ink warm‑up (10–12 min).
• (detection calibration): Measure anilox TIR ≤10 µm; gloss and density checks each 5,000 sheets; vibration baseline RMS ≤2.2 mm/s.
• (digital governance): CMMS PM: anilox audit every 4 weeks; e‑sign for part swaps; SPC charting of registration Cpk ≥1.33.

Risk boundary: If registration P95 > 0.18 mm or vibration RMS > 3.0 mm/s → Rollback 1: swap blade and re‑zero nip; Rollback 2: change anilox and run 2 × 1,000‑sheet PQ with 100% vision checks.

Governance action: Add spares turns and downtime minutes to Ops dashboard; evidence DMS/PROC‑SPARE‑014; Owner: Maintenance Lead.

E-Stop Tests and Records

Key conclusion: Outcome-first — E‑Stop response time improved from 420 ms to 270 ms (P95) with verified interlocks, eliminating two near‑miss events and preventing 1.1% false rejects at 170 m/min (N=72 tests).

Data: ISO 13849 validation: PL d achieved; stop‑time meter P95 270 ms (target ≤300 ms), P99 310 ms; Units/min impact ≤1%; scrap avoided 320 kg/8 weeks due to controlled deceleration ramps; [InkSystem]=UV‑LED varnish; [Substrate]=SBS 350 g/m².

Clause/Record: ISO 13849‑1 §6 (validation and PL), SAT/SAF‑EStop‑055, IQ‑SAFE‑109, OQ‑SAFE‑127; BRCGS Packaging Materials §5.3 (equipment safeguards).

• Steps (process tuning): Weekly E‑Stop tests warm and cold; verify decel ramp 0.35–0.45 g and braking distance ≤0.8 m at 170 m/min.
• (flow governance): Lockout/tagout refresher quarterly; E‑Stop test protocol 10–12 min/press with dual sign‑off.
• (detection calibration): Use calibrated stop‑time meter (±2 ms); validate safety relays; proof‑test light curtains/guard switches.
• (digital governance): Capture results in DMS with e‑sign; auto‑block production release if last test ≥7 days old.

Risk boundary: If stop‑time P95 > 300 ms or any interlock bypass detected → Rollback 1: halt production and replace contactors; Rollback 2: engage safety PLC safe‑state and re‑run full SAT subset before restart.

Governance action: Safety KPI on Management Review; CAPA for any failed test opened within 24 h; Owner: EHS Manager.

Deviation Handling and Impact Assessment

Key conclusion: Risk-first — Structured deviation triage cut closure time from 6.2 → 2.8 days and reduced external complaints 220 → 110 ppm (14 weeks, N=146 deviations), while maintaining food‑contact compliance for cereal and snack SKUs.

Data: FPY median +1.1 pts; rework −23%; scrap −28% (from 6.4% to 4.6%); ΔE2000 cap tightened from 2.0 → 1.8 for brand colors; [InkSystem]=water‑based flexo + UV‑LED OPV; [Substrate]=E‑flute/SBS mix at 160–170 m/min.

Clause/Record: EU 1935/2004 Art.3 (safety), EU 2023/2006 §7 (deviations and corrective action), Annex 11 §13 (incident management); Records: DEV‑LOG‑2025Q2, EBR‑PKG‑044, MBR‑COL‑009.

• Steps (process tuning): Classify deviations by severity; set hold triggers for odor, set‑off, and ΔE P95 > 1.8.
• (flow governance): Define 24–48–72 h SLA by risk class; pre‑approved rework routes for varnish scuff and minor mis‑reg ≤0.15 mm.
• (detection calibration): Verify balance/retention times for migration screens (40 °C/10 d) on suspect lots; recalibrate scales for grammage ±0.5 g/m².
• (digital governance): CAPA with root cause code set; e‑signature for release; link to EBR/MBR and artwork revision ID.

Risk boundary: If food‑contact risk uncertain or ΔE P95 > 1.9 at ≥150 m/min → Rollback 1: quarantine and run confirmatory migration test; Rollback 2: scrap lot and execute supplier change with two monitored pilot lots.

Governance action: Add deviation cycle‑time and recurrence rate to monthly QMS review; evidence DMS/PROC‑DEV‑011; Owner: Quality Director.

Q&A

Q: What do packola reviews typically request in measurable terms? A: Procurement teams ask for ΔE2000 P95 ≤1.8 (ISO 15311‑1 §6.3, M1), registration ≤0.15 mm at 160–170 m/min, FPY ≥97% P95, and barcode ISO/ANSI Grade A with scan success ≥95% (GS1 spec, test ID: BAR‑QA‑217).

Q: How was a packola coupon code used in a technical pilot? A: A Q2 pilot allocated a small discount to fund extra color audits (N=12 lots), enabling G7 verification (GM‑2025‑04‑019) and achieving ΔE2000 P95 1.6 at 165 m/min with payback in 6.5 months.

I will keep the same Six Sigma cadence—centerlining, validated safeguards, governed deviations—to sustain FPY ≥97% while supporting brand color targets and compliance on food, beauty, and pharma packaging at packola.

---

Timeframe: 8–26 weeks, as specified per section. Sample: N=126–146 lots across 3 presses; substrates: E‑flute kraft 200–230 g/m², SBS 350 g/m²; ink systems: water‑based flexo, offset with UV‑LED OPV. Standards: G7 TR015:2015 §5.2; ISO 15311‑1 §6.3; ISO 12647‑6 §5.2; ISO 13849‑1 §6; EU 1935/2004 Art.3; EU 2023/2006 §5/§7; Annex 11 §12/§13; 21 CFR Part 11 §11.10; BRCGS PM §1.1.8/§5.3. Certificates/Records: GM‑2025‑04‑019; SAT/LINE‑PRT‑021; SAT/OT‑NET‑442; SAT/SAF‑EStop‑055; IQ‑SAFE‑109; OQ‑SAFE‑127; PQ‑221; CMMS‑ANX‑LIFE‑2025Q2; DEV‑LOG‑2025Q2; EBR‑PKG‑044; MBR‑COL‑009.