Seventeen.
That’s how many separate insert pieces went into a single SixAxis package before anyone stopped to ask why.
Hexcomb here, a filler pad there, all of it cut and folded by hand, box after box, shift after shift.
It wasn’t protecting the product any better than a simpler setup would have.
It was just what had always been done.
Nobody had gone back to ask if there was a better way, until Morrisette Packaging did.
SixAxis makes OSHA-compliant configurable access platforms and stair safe systems, the kind of equipment that gets people safely on, over, and into production facilities. Getting that equipment through the supply chain in one piece is its own engineering problem, and for a long time, the packaging that solved it was doing far more work than it needed to.
A Cold Call That Took Two Years to Answer
Every vendor relationship starts somewhere. This one started with a phone that didn’t ring back for two years.
Robert O’Donnell, director of purchasing at SixAxis, finally picked up. His reasoning: “I didn’t need you. But I need you now.”
He offered one product to quote. Morrisette Packaging delivered well enough to earn the next one.
Most vendors would have taken the win and settled into a routine. We asked for something harder instead: “We don’t want your business if all we’re going to do is come in and take your orders and do the same thing the last guys did. Do you have anything that hasn’t changed in a long time?”
O’Donnell had an answer ready.
The Box That Time Forgot
The package in question protected stair and access system components, and it had been packed the same way for years.
Multiple sizes of filler pads, folded by hand. A significant amount of hexcomb stuffed in around everything. Tread stacks wrapped in stretch film to hold them together. It worked in the sense that the product arrived intact, but it was slow to assemble, wasteful, and harder on the line than necessary.
When Morrisette Packaging’s Design Center first saw it, the reaction was immediate: there was clearly a way to improve the process, lower the material cost and retain (if not improve) the product protection.
Seventeen inserts in one package is a number that tends to have that effect on people who design packaging for a living.
This is the part of the story that plays out at plants across the Carolinas and Virginia more often than anyone likes to admit. Packaging gets built to solve a problem once, and then it just keeps getting used, unquestioned, long after a better solution was possible.
If it’s been a while since you took a closer look at your process, we’d be glad to help.
Six Months, Twelve Prototypes, One Better Box
There was no single redesign meeting where someone drew the new box on a whiteboard and called it done. We collaborated with the SixAxis teams to work toward a solution in batches, a couple of packages at a time, over more than six months.
Prototype, bring it back, look at what worked and what didn’t, adjust, prototype again. About twelve packages went through that cycle before the team landed on something everyone was satisfied with.
The insert count on the original problem package dropped from 17 to 7 while better protecting the product than the old setup did. Across the broader packaging portfolio, SixAxis went from roughly 16 filler types to about 6.
That’s not a tweak. That’s a rebuild, done carefully enough that nothing broke along the way.
Cutting Inserts Without Cutting Corners
The redesign mattered because it worked for everyone touching that box, not just the people paying for it.
Purchasing got a lower-cost package.
Engineering got better product protection and faster throughput, because fewer inserts means less time spent assembling each shipment.
The line workers building these packages every day got a lighter physical load and a process that made sense.
And SixAxis kept its OSHA compliance and ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications intact throughout, which matters plenty when your product is safety equipment in the first place.
Cutting internal packaging components by roughly half also means less material heading to the landfill with every shipment, a byproduct of good design rather than the headline goal.
It’s worth a look at our sustainability page if reducing packaging waste is on your list this year, because a lot of the time, less waste and better protection turn out to be the same project.
If your team is sitting on a packaging setup that’s outlived its original purpose, it’s usually cheaper to fix than people assume.
Schedule a free coffee and consultation and let’s find out what your version of “seventeen inserts” looks like.
SixAxis Results
Robert O’Donnell put it simply: it’s been a great two years. Morrisette helped SixAxis grow and was strategic in redesigning packaging products that, by his own account, hadn’t been touched in a long time. The new packaging increased their efficiency in ways the old setup never could, because nobody had ever gone back to question it.
That’s the pattern behind most packaging waste we find at other companies too: not bad decisions, just decisions nobody revisited.
A custom design process built around iteration, actual prototypes, and a willingness to ask “why does it take seventeen pieces to do this?” tends to find the fix.
Browse our full range of packaging products or our solutions overview to see where a redesign like this might fit for your operation.
Every packaging setup was right for something, once.
The question worth asking is whether it’s still right for what you’re shipping today.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is packaging efficiency?
Packaging efficiency means using the fewest materials, components, and labor steps necessary to protect a product properly, nothing more. In the SixAxis case study above, that meant cutting a package from 17 inserts down to 7 while keeping the same level of protection, which freed up material costs, assembly time, and warehouse space that had gone unquestioned for years.
How do I know if my packaging design needs a redesign?
The clearest sign is when nobody on the team can explain why a package is built the way it is. Packaging that has been “always done this way” for years, that takes longer to assemble than it should, or that relies on far more filler types than similar products usually has room to improve. Our Design Center can look at your current setup and tell you within a conversation whether a redesign is worth pursuing.
Does reducing the number of packaging components compromise product protection?
Not when the redesign is done carefully. In the SixAxis project, the insert count dropped from 17 to 7 pieces while product protection improved rather than declined, and OSHA compliance along with ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications stayed fully intact throughout. Fewer parts, designed well, tend to protect better than many parts stacked out of habit.
How long does a packaging efficiency redesign take?
It depends on the complexity of the product, but the SixAxis redesign took about six months and roughly twelve prototypes before the team landed on a version everyone was satisfied with. Simpler packages can move faster, while more technical equipment usually benefits from that same prototype-and-adjust cycle.
How do I get started on a packaging efficiency assessment?
The easiest first step is a conversation. Schedule a free coffee and consultation or contact us directly, and Morrisette Packaging’s Design Center can help you figure out what your version of “seventeen inserts” looks like.
