diploma in packaging project - candidate no 0251[1]

The Institute of Packaging Diploma in Packaging Technology

Diploma in Packaging Technology: 2006

Report Describing and Evaluating the Development Process

for a Polyethylene Naphthalate (PEN) Beer Bottle for an

Outdoor Concert

Author: 0251, (Packaging Technologist)

Recipient: Bill Smith, (Managing Director)

Candidate Number: 0251 Diploma in Packaging Technology Unit 5 February 2006


Abstract

This report describes the development process for the launch of a

Polyethylene Naphthalate (PEN) beer bottle for an outdoor music festival.

The report outlines each of the key processes that had to be completed from

the decision to proceed with the project in June 2004 to the product launch in

August 2005. It highlights the role of the Packaging Technologist in the

development process, from selection of material through to transport trials,

and also of each of the other departments within an organisation that must

work together to ensure launch dates are met. Emphasis is placed on the

need for a clear strategy to be developed from the outset and the need for

careful planning and close liason with external suppliers to ensure each

activity is finished on time and budget. The report follows the process through

from planning, implementation of engineering works, line trials through to full

production for the event.



Contents

ABSTRACT i

1.0 INTRODUCTION 11.1 Market Opportunity 1

2.0 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 52.1 Planning 9

2.1.1 Review of Filling Line Operation to Accommodate a Plastic Bottle 92.1.2 Review & Selection of Suitable Plastic Bottle Material 102.1.3 Design of Plastic Bottle & Closure 13

2.2 Implementation 162.2.1 Line Engineering Works 162.2.2 Shelf Life Trials on Hand Filled Product 172.2.3 Design of Label, Selection of Bottle Colour & Artwork Sign Off 182.2.4 Packaging Supply Contracts Put In Place & Packaging Ordered 202.2.5 Bottles, Labels & Closures Arrive On Site 21

2.3 Trial and Trial Review 222.3.1 Full Scale Line Trial 222.3.2 Transport Trial 222.3.3 Assessment of Packaging, Product and Line Capability 23

2.4 Production and Event 23

3.0 CONCLUSIONS 24

4.0 REFERENCES 25

Appendix A 26



1.0 Introduction

The Genuine Beer Company has been bottling beer since 1923. In the early

days the company was a small family run business operating from rented

premises close to the family home. In the 83 years since these small

beginnings the success of the company, founded on tradition and quality, has

seen the company expand into a multinational Plc, and one of the major

global players in the beer industry. Currently the company operates 10 major

beer bottling and canning sites worldwide, ensuring global coverage of The

Genuine Beer Company brand and products.

Traditionally, all bottled beers have been filled into flint, green or amber glass

bottles (Bathe 1997). The reason for glass historically being the material of

choice is because it provides excellent barrier properties, preventing oxygen

entering the product and spoiling it and also prevents the escape of carbon

dioxide so the beer will not go flat. Glass also gives the premium image that

is often associated with products from The Genuine Beer Company. Up until

recent years no other material or materials had been able to meet the

demanding barrier properties required for bottled beers other than glass.

1.1 Market Opportunity

Recent advances in materials science and plastic processing capabilities

have seen the potential for the polymers Polyethylene Tererphthalate (PET)

and Polyethylene Naphthalate (PEN) to be used in the beer bottling industry.



PET plastic bottles are commonly used in the soft drinks industry, having

initially been introduced as an alternative to glass, now the majority of soft

drinks in the 500ml to 2L range of take home packs are almost exclusively

manufactured from PET bottles with plastic screw threaded closures. Beer

was first commercially bottled in plastic by the Carlsberg brewing company in

August 1999, employing a PEN bottle for its Carlsberg and Tuborg brands.

Utilising a plastic bottle for beer has some immediate obvious advantages

against glass;

A 380ml plastic bottle weighs approximately 36g versus 312g for glass.

The reduced weight would significantly improve distribution costs.

Additionally plastic bottles could be blown on site, therefore eliminating

the cost of transporting empty bottles from manufacturer to filler. There

would also be a significant reduction in the noise levels in the bottling

hall.

Plastic beer bottles would be welcomed by organisers of outdoor music

or sports events. Glass bottles are considered a major safety hazard

at these events, with the potential for people being injured by a thrown

or dropped bottle. Shattered glass on the ground is another safety

concern. These concerns over the safety of glass bottles result in hefty

insurance premiums having to be paid to obtain a licence for outdoor

events, with plastic bottles the majority of these concerns would not

require cover and greatly reduce premiums.



Plastic bottles, like glass, can be easily recycled provided they are

manufactured from a single homopolymer, (blended or co-extruded

laminate structures are more difficult to recycle as they are difficult to

sort and have limited further applications).

In light of these advances and the opportunity that this could represent

activities had been ongoing within the company throughout the past two years

to implement a line capable of filling beer into plastic. In the past year this

process was accelerated as discussions with the Global Outdoor Events Co

were at an advanced stage for the sole supply of plastic beer bottles for all

their events. In light of this opportunity a decision was taken in June 2004

that the first event that would be supplied solely in plastic to the Global

Outdoor Events Co would be their summer music festival to be held in

Springfield on the weekend of 9th-11th August 2005. The product to be

launched was the Genuine Beer Company’s flagship brand in a 0.38l plastic

bottle. This proved to be an opportunity not to be missed for two reasons;

firstly, Springfield is only 30 minutes drive from The Genuine Beer Company’s

headquarters in Brewingville and only two hours by road from the company’s

Deepwell Bottling plant where the plastic line was installed and where the

company’s technical centre is based, incorporating group packaging,

development and project engineering activities. Secondly, it provided an

excellent opportunity for our Marketing team to research the impact that

bottling the companies flagship brand in a plastic bottle had on a controlled

market. This test market was seen as having the ingredients for the ideal



marketing mix of Product, Price, Promotion and Place (Soroka 1999). It was

also seen as an excellent pilot for the future roll out of plastic beer bottles

throughout the product range as a glass alternative at Off Sales and other

licensed premises.

The following sections provide an overview of the development process for

launching a plastic beer bottle from the decision to proceed in June 2004

through to product launch on 9th August 2005.



2.0 Development Process

With the compressed timescale of 14 months to launch the product a Project

Leader was appointed to co-ordinate the activities of all the relevant

departments involved to ensure a successful product launch.

Below Figure 1.1 details the different departments and teams involved,

including location.

Figure 1.1 – Teams Involved In The Development Process


Project LeaderDeepwell/Brewingville HQ

Commercial TeamBrewingville HQ

MarketingBrewingville HQ

PurchasingBrewingville HQ

DevelopmentDeepwell

PackagingDeepwell

Project EngineeringDeepwell

ProductionDeepwell


The Gantt Chart on the next pages details the activities that had to be

completed, from the decision in June ’04 to proceed, to successful launch on

the 9th August 2005. The chart also indicates the different teams involved in each of

the key activities.



Activity Team 2004 2005Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Planning

Review of Filling Line Operation to Accommodate a Plastic Bottle Eng, Pro’n

Review & Selection of Suitable Plastic Bottle Material

Pkg, Eng, Purch

Design of Plastic Bottle & Closure

Pkg, Mkg, Eng

Implem

entation

Line Engineering Works, (conveyors, cappers etc) Eng

Shelf Life Trials on Hand Filled Product NPD

Design of Label, Selection of Bottle Colour, Artwork Sign Off Mkg, Pkg

Packaging Supply Contracts Put in Place & Packaging Ordered Purch

Bottles, Labels & Closures Arrive on Site. Quality Check

Pkg, Pro’n, Quality

Trial

Full Scale Line Trial Pro’n, NPD, Eng

Transport Trial Distribution

Candidate Number: 0251 Diploma in Packaging Technology Unit 5 February 2006 10


Activity Team 2004 2005Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Trial R

eview

Assessment of Packaging, Product and of Line Capability

Pkg, Pro’n, NPD, Eng

Specifications Loaded onto Quality Systems Quality

Remedial Engineering Work to Line Eng

Production & E

vent

Bottling of 100,000 Units for Event Pro’n

Distribution of Product to Organisers Distribution

OUTDOOR CONCERT ALL

Candidate Number: 0251 Diploma in Packaging Technology Unit 5 February 2006 11


Diploma in Packaging Technology

The following provides the details and reasoning behind the decisions made

associated with the activities outlined in the Gantt chart.

2.1 Planning

2.1.1 Review of Filling Line Operation to Accommodate a Plastic Bottle

The Deepwell plant chosen to house the plastic bottling line had a number of

advantages over the other bottling plants in the group for implementing a

plastic bottling line. Firstly, the plant has three similar glass bottle filling lines,

this provided the plant with spare capacity and the option to operate full

production by utilising only two of the lines, allowing the third line to be

converted to a plastic bottling line. The review also detailed all the

engineering work and capital spend that would be required in order to make

the launch date. To enable the line to be converted a number of components

had to be put in place;

A new de-palletisier had to be specified and purchased to handle

plastic bottles.

Conveyors had to be modified to ensure the continuous smooth transit

of bottles.

Adjustments had to be made to the labelling equipment to allow for

front, back and neck label to be applied to the bottle.

The current crown closure capper had to be modified to enable closure

application to a plastic bottle.

Candidate Number: 0251 Diploma in Packaging Technology Unit 5 February 2006 13th February 2006

12



The planning of the line conversion was timed to cause minimum disruption to

the rest of the operation. The equipment suppliers were brought in at an early

stage of the project and asked to work together to ensure successful

completion of the line.

2.1.2 Review & Selection of Suitable Plastic Bottle Material

One of the most critical elements of the project was to ensure that the correct

plastic was chosen for the bottle, this was essential in order to achieve the

shelf life required for the product. To assist with the selection a number of

beer products currently in plastic were analysed and a supplier for the plastic

bottles was identified. After reviewing the market and from the advice from

the bottle supplier the choice came down to three materials;

Polyethylene Tererphthalate (PET)

Polyethylene Naphthalate (PEN)

PET/PEN blend (multilayer construction)

(Other material options were available however were ruled out at an early

stage of the investigation, these included; surface coatings and blending of

high barrier resins or oxygen scavengers with PET to aid achieving the

desired shelf life, these were ruled out mainly because the technologies are

still at an early stage and not proven in the marketplace).

On the following page Table 1.1 outlines the critical properties that were deemed

essential, highlighting the comparisons between each material;


13



MaterialProperties

Good Barrier

Heat Resistant

Re-Useable

Able to Recycle Easily Cost

PET No1 No No Yes Least

PEN Yes2 Yes Yes Yes Greatest3

PET/PEN Yes Yes No No Medium

1Monolayer PET provides shelf life of little more than one month.2Monolayer PEN provides a shelf life of six months at ambient temperature.3PEN considered approximately 4 times as expensive as PET.

Table 1.1 – Comparison of Plastic Properties

Each of the three materials considered have obvious advantages and

disadvantages, with PET winning on cost however its low shelf life and low

heat resistant were considered to be a major downside. For these reasons

PET was discounted at an early stage, (although the one month shelf life

would have been suitable for an event like the outdoor concert being planned,

were filling and consumption could be timed, its long term future for use in

licensed premises and in the retail trade were the distribution chain demands

a longer shelf life eliminated if from further consideration).

The decision on what material to be used ultimately came down to either a

straight PEN monolayer, or a blend of PET and PEN. Both materials are high

barrier with PEN having approximately five times more barrier protection for

carbon dioxide, oxygen and water vapour transmission than PET alone. Both

materials are also heat resistant, a result of the higher glass transition

temperature of PEN, meaning that they can be pasteurised post fill in a

pasteurisation tunnel. If PET had been chosen the beer would have had to

been flash pasteurised before filling or undergone a cold filtering process, this


14



may also have led to the need for the beer to be filled aseptically, calling for

yet more capital expense.

The decision to proceed with PEN over a PET/PEN blend was ultimately

because PEN offered a solution that was refillable. The long term strategy of

introducing plastic beer bottles was to penetrate the licensed premises trade

in pubs and clubs, plastic in these venues would also be seen as an

advantage on health and safety grounds. These premises can easily collect

the plastic bottles and send for washing and refilling as is currently done with

glass. The better heat and chemical resistance of PEN (Twede & Goddard

1999) made it suitable for washing at high temperatures and with caustic

cleaning agents, similar to those used for glass. Tests on PEN bottles have

shown that they can be successfully washed and refilled more than 20 times.

The increased trippage of the PEN bottles should offset the increased

material costs. Other advantages of PEN include it is easier to recycle as it is

a monolayer material manufactured from a straight homopolymer and it gives

greater flexibility over bottle design and tooling costs (Giles 1999).

The decision was taken at this stage to be supplied the bottles already formed

by the manufacturer, the option did exist to be supplied the pre-forms and

blow the bottles on site, however, this would have added complexity and

significantly increased capital expenditure.


15



2.1.3 Design of Plastic Bottle & Closure

The size and shape of the bottle had to be determined at an early stage of the

project to allow the design of the filling line to be completed. The design of

the bottle was managed by the Packaging, Marketing and Engineering teams

in conjunction with the bottle manufacturer. Essentially there were two

options; firstly to design a bespoke bottle or secondly to utilise one of the

standard PEN bottles supplied by the manufacturer. Designing a unique

bottle for The Genuine Beer Company brand had obvious benefits of creating

a point of difference against other products on the market, however this option

would be expensive with the need for investment in tooling. This investment

would be in the region of £150k for new pre-form moulds and blow moulds. In

light of this and also the lead time involved of 16 weeks before any bottles

would be available for preliminary trials the decision was taken to use the

manufacturers standard 0.38l PEN bottle, Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 – PEN Beer Bottle


16



Advantages of using an off the shelf solution like this meant that work by the

development team on shelf life could commence almost immediately.

The majority of plastic bottles used for soft drinks employ a standard threaded

screw cap, however, glass beer bottles have traditionally used a crown

closure. Our Marketing department did not want to move away from the

crown closure design feeling that a screw cap would not convey the right

image and would make the product more in line with a soft drink and not a

premium alcohol. In light of this the decision was made to investigate the

options for using a crown type closure on the PEN bottle. Again this decision

had to be made at an early stage of the development process to allow for all

the necessary engineering works to implement a crown closure to be

completed in good time.

With the brief from the Marketing team the Packaging and Engineering teams

investigated the options available. The current crown closure was eliminated

as they risked damaging the bottle neck finish. Having reviewed other

potential solutions available the most attractive solution was the MaxiCrown

cap, Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 – MaxiCrown Closure


17



The MaxiCrown meets all the requirements for a beer bottle closure, with

sealing performance equal to that of a standard crown closure and

furthermore as demonstrated from Figure 1.3 it also makes the bottle safe and

easy to open. The ring pull design means no bottle opener is required, again

enhancing the safety features of the plastic bottle. The MaxiCrown is also

tamper evident as any previous attempts to open and reseal the bottle would

be easily recognizable. The seal is also suitable for the bottle to go undergo

post fill pasteurisation, with the seal holding under high pressure.

Additionally, the MaxiCrown closure can also be used to seal glass bottles,

providing potential for use on the glass bottling line as well.

The closure is constructed of 0.21mm aluminium with a sealing layer of low

density polyethylene (LDPE), while the ring pull is made from high density

polyethylene (HDPE). A marketing advantage of the MaxiCrown is that it can

be printed or embossed as the customer demands, so none of the marketing

potential that the cap offers is lost by using a MaxiCrown closure. From an

engineering perspective the MaxiCrown was a neat solution as the current

capper unit already on the line for applying standard crown closures could be

used with the MaxiCrown conversion unit fitted for sealing MaxiCrown

closures to PEN bottles.


18



2.2 Implementation

2.2.1 Line Engineering Works

Engineering works were commenced in October 2004 and planned to

continue until mid May 2005. The works incorporated the fitting of converyors

to convey the plastic bottles, installation of a new de-palletiser at the

beginning of the line, modification to the capper unit to suit the MaxiCrown

closure and work on the labellers for application to plastic bottles. The lead

time of seven and a half months planned for the completion of this work

included the time from order to delivery of all equipment, with the new de-

palletiser having the greatest lead time of 4 months. The timeframe also

allowed for trialling of each new component installed and importantly training

of production staff on the new machinery and of the new procedures that had

to be put in place.

Figure 1.4 below shows the completed capper unit for application of the

MaxiCrown closure system.

Figure 1.4 – Installed MaxiCrown Closure Unit


19



2.2.2 Shelf Life Trials on Hand Filled Product

Before The Genuine Beer Company launches any new product full shelf life

trials must be completed. With the line not to be fully available for trials until

mid May 2005 this would not provide enough time for a full shelf life trial to be

conducted (the beer is anticipated to have a shelf life of 6 months). Although

a short self life would be adequate for the summer music festival being

planned for the ultimate goal was for introduction into trade were longer life

would be required. To get round this problem standard PEN bottles were

delivered to the filler by hand and filled, the bottles were then sealed using a

lab sealing machine supplied by the capper manufacturer, once sealed they

were passed through the pasteurisation tunnel and underwent all the line

quality checks, date coded and collected for shelf life analysis. In conjunction

with the filling of PEN bottles by hand a similar study was conducted on glass

bottles for comparison. Shelf life trials on the hand filled samples were

commenced in December 2004, with the six month window complete in May

2005. Samples collected were split up into those from the start, middle and

end of the run. The samples were tested throughout shelf life for taste, yeasts

and mould and carbon dioxide retention. Results indicated that the PEN

bottles performed adequately and had acceptable shelf life over the six month

period, further shelf life work was conducted on the PEN bottles in mid May

once the line was available for full trials. The results from this initial trial

provided the confidence in shelf life to allow for the product to be launched in

August 2005.


20



2.2.3 Design of Label, Selection of Bottle Colour & Artwork Sign Off

With all the packaging components in place the Marketing team in conjunction

with the outside advertising agency and artwork house could then proceed

with the selection of bottle colour bottle, label design and artwork sign off.

Bottle Colour

Traditionally all Genuine Beer Company products are packaged in

amber glass bottles. To avoid confusion among regular customers and

so that the brand is not mistaken for products manufactured by

different beer companies it was decided that the PEN plastic bottle

would also be produced in amber, this would have the added benefit of

limiting the amount of UV light penetrating the bottle and spoiling the

beer.

Label Design

The bottle was to have three labels, front, back and neck label. The

label design was to reflect the design of the current glass bottle version

of the same brand, however, the back label was to contain information

listing the advantages of plastic versus glass. It was also decided that

for the initial launch the product would have a metallised front and neck

label. To ensure the branding of the bottle was as the Marketing team

wanted an artwork house was briefed to come up with a number of

different concepts, these concepts were then mocked up on the amber

bottles and the most suitable chosen to proceed to print. In conjunction

with this the label design was provided to the Engineering team to


21



enable the necessary change parts to be purchased for the labellers to

allow for successful application. The chosen artwork was also

provided to the label printers for them to comment on printability.

Once the final artwork was signed off by both the Marketing and

Packaging teams it was then forwarded to the printers on CD ROM in

Illustrator format. It was the printers responsibility to do the

reprographics on the artwork and provide proofs of the artwork for sign

off before printing. One of the added complexities in the project was

the use of metallic inks to give the metallic effect on some sections of

the label, it was essential that the printers could re-produce these

consistently throughout the print run and subsequent runs. Once the

printers had finalised the reprographics work an electronic proof was

provided for checking (to ensure the artwork was all in the correct

position and that all the text was correct, and importantly that the

barcode was correct). Along with the electronic proof a hard copy

cromalin proof was also provided to, this gave a good indication of how

the colours would look on the final printed version. Upon sign off of the

cromalin the printers could then proceed and produce plates to allow

for the lithographic printing of the labels.

The print run was attended by the Marketing team leader to ensure the

quality of labels demanded for a new product was met. At the print run

standards were also drawn up of what was acceptable in terms of

colour (light & dark) and registration. Both the printers and Marketing


22



team kept samples of the agreed standards for all subsequent print

runs to be matched to.

Closure Design

The MaxiCrown closure was also be branded for added impact. It was

decided to opt for the same design as the current glass version of the

bottle. Again a similar proofing exercise was conducted on the closure

artwork as for the labels.

2.2.4 Packaging Supply Contracts Put In Place & Packaging Ordered

As with all suppliers contracts had to be set up with each of the different

packaging suppliers involved in the project. This provided an opportunity to

negotiate best price on each of the components. The contracts stated

anticipated annual volumes and pricing based on a range of order quantities.

For the PEN bottle contract a rebate was also negotiated based on the

anticipated growth in business over a 5 year period. To ensure consistent

supply of packaging for the line a forecasting system was introduced with the

packaging suppliers being provided the weekly stocks of bottles, labels and

closures on site, the objective was to ensure that the site never fell below 4

weeks stock on any single item.

Once the contracts were all signed and in place each of the new components

had to be set up on the companies central purchasing system and any new

suppliers had also to be activated on the system. Each new item was

assigned a separate item code and the corresponding unit price was entered


23



into the purchasing system. In February 2005 the orders were placed for the

packaging required for the Summer Music Festival.

2.2.5 Bottles, Labels & Closures Arrive On Site

In April 2005 all packaging had arrived on site. It was essential that all

incoming packaging underwent a quality check. The quality checks put in

place were to ensure;

All printed labels matched the approved colour and registration

standards.

The bottles were to the specified weight, wall thickness (including even

distribution of material throughout the bottle) and that the closure was

also to the specified geometry. This was essential to ensure the bottle

withstood the pressure of the carbonated product and that a good seal

was made with the closure.

The caps were also checked on arrival, again for print quality and

geometry to ensure adequate sealing could be achieved.

Records were kept of all quality checks and quality manuals updated to reflect

the new procedures that had been put into place. In line with the necessary

quality checks that had been put in place a ‘Product & Process Change

Validation’ form was completed by the relevant teams responsible for each

section before the project could go ‘live’. The form covers equipment,

process, quality and packaging aspects. A blank copy of the form can be

found in Appendix A at the back of this report.


24



2.3 Trial and Trial Review

2.3.1 Full Scale Line Trial

In May 2005 with all engineering work complete and all packaging on site a

full scale line trial could be conducted. The objective was to run the line for a

period of time to assess if all equipment and components were operating

correctly and to provide product for further shelf life and to allow for full transit

trials to be completed. Both the production and engineering managers were

present for the line trial. Product was filled initially at low speed with the line

speed gradually increased to determine the optimum operating speed. All

elements of the equipment were reviewed and any areas that needed further

improvement were noted and logged for remedial engineering work to be

conducted. No major line failures were noted with all equipment functioning,

however, some minor adjustments needed to be made in order to keep the

label position accurate. Product was also stored and tested for leakers, it was

essential that a good seal was achieved, otherwise shelf life would be greatly

compromised.

2.3.2 Transport Trial

The filled product was palletised and stored in the warehouse for distribution.

The pallet configuration and stack height utilised was that recommended by

the bottle supplier. For the distribution trial product was loaded onto curtain

sided trailers and transported by road to a number of central distribution

warehouses that are managed by The Genuine Beer Company. On arrival

the loads were inspected and broken down into smaller units and again


25



distributed by road. At each stage of the trial samples were held back from

each separate section of the journey for testing, the trial was also documented

and photographic evidence was also used to support all findings. All transport

trials proved to be successful with no excess damage occurring. Label

scuffing was also at a minimum and comparable to what would have been

acceptable with glass.

2.3.3 Assessment of Packaging, Product and Line Capability

The retained samples from the trial run were assessed for quality from a pack

presentation and product quality perspective. Tasting sessions were

conducted against the same product in a glass bottle, results were favourable.

Further shelf life trials conducted on the line trial produced favourable results

also and backed up those results previously obtained from the hand filled trial

conducted back in December 2004. With all remedial engineering work

completed on the line the new plastic bottling line was signed off and

accepted by The Genuine Brewing Company from the manufacturers of the

new components that had been installed. And with all the quality

specifications loaded onto the quality systems and final sign off from

Packaging, Engineering and Marketing achieved the initial production of the

100,000 units for the Summer Music Festival could be planned.

2.4 Production & Event

On the 25th July 2005 the 100,000 units were bottled for the outdoor music

concert and distributed to the organisers a few days before the event. The


26



festival proved to be a great success for the launch of The Genuine Beer

Company’s first venture into plastic bottles. The majority of comments that

came back from the organisers were positive with people enjoying the

experience of drinking out of a plastic bottle. The follow up marketing has

also proved successful with the product now also being sold in a chain of Off

Licenses, with the proposed launch into the pub trade planned for December

2005. The line is now operating on a three day a week basis and with

increased sales expected and products being developed specifically for the

plastic bottle it is expected by the second quarter 2006 that the line will be

running at close to full capacity on a 6 day week.

3.0 Conclusions

The successful launch of the PEN plastic beer bottle owed a lot to the careful

planning that was put in at an early stage of the project and the good

communication and close team work between those involved. It also showed

that to enable a new product to be launched successfully inputs are required

from the Packaging, Engineering, Development, Marketing, Quality,

Purchasing and Production functions of the company. The Packaging

Technologists role is to ensure that the desires of the Marketing department

are met and to ensure a solution is achieved that is feasible in production and

meets all the necessary quality standards.


27



4.0 References

Bathe P. (1997), Developments in the Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks. Pira

Publishing ISBN 1858021723.

Giles G. A. (1999), Handbook of Beverage Packaging. Sheffield Academic

Press, Sheffield, England.

Soroka W. (1999), Fundamentals of Packaging Technology. Revised UK

Edition: Anne Emblem and Henry Emblem, Melton Mowbray: The Institute of

Packaging; First Published 1995 by IOPP, USA.

Twede D., Goddard R. (1999), Packaging Material 2nd Edition. Pira Publishing

ISBN 1858022622.

Internet Resources

www.americanplasticscouncil.org

www.carlsberg.com

www.grrn.org (Grassroots Recycling Network)

www.maxicrown.se

www.plasticredesign.org

www.plasticstechnology.com

www.pira.co.uk

www.rexam.com


28

APPENDIX A



Site:

Change being validated:

Project Title (if applicable):

Capex Ref (if applicable): Site Manager:

Project Scope

Validation approval must be completed prior to going live with a new product, product rejuvenation, new equipment, new process, new supplier or raw material/packaging

Please indicate which of the change categories listed below are relevant to this project,

Equipment □ Process □ Quality/ Hygiene □ Packaging/Ingredient □ New Product □

Equipment Validation

Central QA sign off for hygienic design of new plant ? Yes/No

Adequate pre-handover trials complete and accepted by production ? Yes/No

Agreed contractual performance trials met including efficiency/output etc ? Yes/No

ISO 2001/ISO 14001 manuals updated ? Yes/No

Manufacturer’s or supplier’s handover Certificate issued ? Yes/No

Health and Safety plus Environmental impacts considered ? Yes/No Signed: Date:

Process New process handover trials completed and accepted by production? Yes/No

Central QA signed off process change ? Yes/No

ISO 2001/ISO 14001 manuals updated ? Yes/No

Any Health and Safety plus Environmental impacts actioned ? Yes/No

Signed: Date:


29



Quality/Hygiene

Flavour assessment complete though life of product acceptable ? Yes/No

All new specifications loaded onto quality system for site ? Yes/No

HACCP and BRC updated ? Yes/No

Any supplier databases updated ? Yes/No

Full shelf life trials completed and in specification ? Yes/No

Equipment and product micro counts meet specification ? Yes/No Signed: Date:

Packaging / Ingredients

Packaging fitness for purpose trials carried out and acceptable ? Yes/No

New ingredient signed off by central QA for food safety ? Yes/No

Customer implications of new ingredient agreed ? Yes/No

New suppliers put on the system ? Yes/No

Procurement negotiated best cost ? Yes/No

Transit trials carried out to test against all possible distribution routes and acceptable ? Yes/No

Signed: Date:

New Product

Product specification signed off by Central QA ? Yes/No New product gone through Gate Process and reached Gate 4 with full sign off ?

Yes/No

New product loaded onto Navision ? Yes/No Signed: Date:

PROJECT HANDOVER AGREEMENT


30



I consider that the project, and all of the relevant areas of the project scope as detailed above, to be sufficiently completed as to be adopted by the site for the purpose intended.

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Signed: ___ _________________________ Site Manager

Signed: ____________________________ Technical Director


31

diploma in packaging project - candidate no 0251[1]

Documents