Factory digitally transforms labeling with NiceLabel

Challenges

Manual processes took a toll on efficiency

Prior to implementing NiceLabel, the customer struggled with errors and inefficiency due to manual processes. As the factory’s Information Technology (IT) Manager explains, “We had approximately 12,000 Microsoft Word documents stored on a file/print server. These documents contained all of the various labels we used for our customers. We had over 30 different label sizes, so nothing was standardized.”

Employees working at the warehouse’s packing places would have to print labels directly from Microsoft Word. In order to package a customer order, they would first have to look the customer up in the system, find the correct label type for that customer, open the label, populate it with the correct information, and then print the label. Due to the large number of layouts, employees had to manually adjust the printer to handle the layout www.nicelabel.com in question. If the label was the wrong size or if there was a problem with the printer, employees would have to do the whole process again to make the necessary changes. “We estimated that it took 1-2 minutes to find the labels they needed for each order. That’s not including the time it would take to change the label size or adjust the printer. And this process had to be repeated for each customer,” relates the IT manager.

Unlocked templates increased the risk of errors

In addition to the time-consuming nature of the process, employees also had to enter and modify label template information manually. Since the label templates were kept in Microsoft Word, they could be edited by anyone. Problems arose due to errors in data entry and inadvertent changes to labels. “The risk of errors was very high because you could edit the text in the label. We had a lot of errors because of the wrong lot number, an incorrect barcode or because the article text had been overwritten. All of these things were at risk because the template wasn’t locked.” The warehouse’s quality management team was primarily focused on ensuring the quality of the materials coming into the warehouse. This meant that label errors often weren’t detected until they were discovered by the customer. The resulting relabeling of customer shipments was costly, and at an estimated 10- 15 errors per month, the situation simply wasn’t sustainable. The lack of a printed label history also meant that there was no traceability of labels shipped in case of a recall or customer complaints. The manual process also meant that there was no quality control process in place for processing label change requests.