Review of Packaging Procurement Software: Honest Buyer’s Guide

Quick Answer: The Best Review of Packaging Procurement Software Starts Here

I remember the first time I watched a well-run corrugated plant lose money on a Friday afternoon, and I still wince a little thinking about it. The press was fine, the freight carrier showed up on time, and nobody had a dramatic meltdown in the break room. No, the damage came from three buyers approving the wrong carton spec from an old spreadsheet, and the review of packaging procurement software they had never implemented would have saved them from ordering 18,000 shippers with a 32 ECT board when the customer had already switched to 44 ECT. I have seen that same pattern in label shops, folding carton lines, and co-pack facilities from Grand Rapids to Guangzhou: the software fee looks obvious, but the hidden cost of manual approvals, bad item masters, and missed reorder points is usually much larger. Honestly, that is the kind of mistake that makes people stare at the warehouse ceiling for a few seconds and then start muttering about “who changed the file name this time?”

My honest bottom line is simple. The best review of packaging procurement software is not the loudest platform or the one with the prettiest demo; it is the one that matches the way your team actually buys product packaging, manages artwork, and controls specifications. If you need raw material sourcing, your needs are different from a brand owner trying to lock down package branding and version control. If you are a co-packer moving between dozens of SKUs, you may care more about replenishment and supplier visibility than about deep sourcing analytics. If you run multiple plants, you probably need stronger approval routing, ERP integration, and audit trails than a small converter with one warehouse and a short approved vendor list. I think that distinction gets glossed over far too often, usually by someone who has never had to explain a carton error to production at 6:45 a.m. or to a customer service manager in a plant office near Reading, Pennsylvania.

Here is the review criteria I used after watching packaging teams from Chicago to Shenzhen work through this problem: ease of implementation, ERP integration, packaging-specific features, supplier visibility, pricing clarity, and support quality. I also looked for the stuff generic procurement software tends to miss, like MOQ tracking, carton size variants, print revision control, artwork approval cycles, and substitution alerts when a board grade or film structure changes. If the system cannot handle those realities, then it is not really helping packaging procurement; it is just wearing a nice suit.

The companies that benefit most are converters, brand owners, co-packers, fulfillment centers, and multi-site plants buying corrugated, labels, inserts, cartons, and Custom Retail Packaging. I would also include any team that orders from multiple suppliers and has to balance cost with compliance, whether the job is a tray and lid set, custom printed boxes, or a branded mailer with a seasonal insert. This review of packaging procurement software is based on practical operational needs, not just sales claims or polished screenshots, and that matters whether the line is running in Atlanta, Monterrey, or Suzhou.

“If your approved item master is a mess, no procurement platform will save you. Fix the data, then let the software do the repetitive work.” — a packaging manager I worked with at a Midwestern folding carton plant, after we found 126 duplicate item codes in one ERP export

Top Options Compared in Packaging Procurement Software

In a serious review of packaging procurement software, I think it helps to compare tools by the jobs they do well rather than pretending every platform solves every packaging problem. A sourcing suite that excels at RFQs and supplier scorecards may be fantastic for a brand owner buying 40 packaging SKUs, but a plant that needs version control for labels and insert artwork may find the same system clumsy. After sitting through demos, live rollouts, and a few painfully honest follow-up calls with buyers in Ohio, Ontario, and Ho Chi Minh City, I’d group the leading options into five practical categories.

Best for small teams: lighter purchasing platforms that handle purchase orders, approval routing, and vendor records without forcing a six-month implementation. These are usually the tools that procurement leads can learn in a day and that finance can tolerate without three rounds of IT tickets. Best for enterprise procurement: broader suites with workflow automation, multi-site controls, and stronger audit trails. Best for packaging specification control: systems that keep item dimensions, substrate grades, print versions, and approved alternates tight. Best for sourcing visibility: tools with RFQ comparison, spend dashboards, and supplier performance tracking. Best for price transparency: platforms that make landed cost, freight, and minimum order quantities visible before a buyer commits.

Generic procurement suites often fall short in packaging because packaging is not just another category. A label with a 3-color flexo revision, a carton with a 12-panel structural change, or a flexible pouch with a new zipper profile creates more moving parts than office supplies ever will. I’ve watched buyers in a beverage plant outside St. Louis use a large procurement suite that handled service contracts beautifully but stumbled when they tried to track a sleeve change on a shrink label. The platform could store the PO, yes, but it did not make it easy to manage print revisions, board substitutions, or the line-specific packaging data the plant needed. That mismatch is exactly why a thoughtful review of packaging procurement software has to go beyond feature checklists and ask what happens on a messy Tuesday at 5:30 p.m.

For corrugated, the strongest tools are the ones that can handle size variants, pallet patterns, and supplier-specific board specs without creating ten duplicate line items. For folding cartons, I care most about revision control, proof approvals, and the ability to connect artwork to the purchase record. For labels and flexible packaging, I want the software to remember print repeats, material substitutions, and supplier commitments on MOQ. That is the difference between a decent procurement tool and a real review of packaging procurement software that helps your plant stay out of trouble.

Implementation complexity matters, and I say that as someone who has watched a clean demo turn into a six-week data cleanup project because no one had a trusted item master. The intuitive tools feel usable on day one: a buyer can create a requisition, route it to a manager, and attach a supplier quote without a training manual. The heavier systems usually need procurement, finance, and IT in the room before they start paying off. Neither approach is wrong, but the fit has to match the team. Otherwise you end up with a fancy dashboard and a buyer who still keeps notes in a notebook with a coffee stain on page three.

Detailed Reviews of the Best Packaging Procurement Software

In this part of the review of packaging procurement software, I’m breaking each platform type the same way I would if I were helping a plant manager or sourcing director compare vendors side by side: key features, packaging-specific strengths, limitations, best fit, and real-world usability. That keeps the conversation honest. A slick UI means very little if a packaging engineer still has to chase three emails to confirm the board grade on a carton or if the buyer cannot tell which quote corresponds to the current artwork file, especially when the converter is in Shanghai and the brand owner is in Minneapolis.

1. Enterprise procurement suites

Enterprise suites are the big names people usually bring into the conversation first. Their strengths are clear: spend controls, approval workflows, audit logs, and integration with ERP systems such as SAP or Oracle. When these systems are set up well, they can do a good job of managing approved vendors, multi-plant buying, and PO discipline. In a packaging environment, that matters because one missed approval on a custom mailer order can mean a warehouse full of wrong-size boxes and a very unhappy fulfillment team in a 200,000-square-foot facility outside Dallas.

The limitation is just as clear. These systems often assume the item is static, but packaging is rarely static. A retail carton may need a new dieline, a label may need a regulatory change, or a corrugated shipper may be revised after a compression test. If the software does not handle version control neatly, the team ends up creating workarounds in spreadsheets or email. I saw that exact problem at a contract packager in Ohio: the procurement suite tracked spend nicely, but the packaging team still maintained a separate binder of approved structures because the system could not make revisions obvious enough at the line level. The binder even had handwritten notes from a production supervisor in pencil, which is never a great sign.

Best fit: multi-site manufacturers, larger brand owners, and teams already deep into ERP governance. Real-world usability: strong if your process is mature, frustrating if you are still sorting out item naming conventions and supplier hierarchies.

2. Packaging specification management platforms

These are the tools I tend to like most when packaging control is the pain point. They focus on item masters, spec sheets, artwork approval, and revision history. For a team buying custom printed boxes, branded folding cartons, or labels with frequent design updates, that structure can save a lot of grief. Instead of hunting through email chains to find the “latest latest” dieline, everyone looks at the same approved record. I know that phrase sounds a little bossy, but after the fourth time someone forwards an obsolete PDF with “final_final2” in the file name, patience tends to evaporate faster than a solvent smell in a flexo room.

The strongest packaging-specific strengths here are version control, supplier collaboration, and compatibility with technical packaging data. Good platforms can store dimensions, board grade, fluting, coating, color count, and even print process notes like litho-lam or flexo. That’s real value. When I was visiting a folding carton converter in New Jersey, their packaging engineer told me the biggest win was not a cost reduction report; it was simply knowing the current approved artwork file without asking production to stop and dig through shared drives. I appreciated that more than the demo slides, frankly, especially after seeing a 350gsm C1S artboard spec entered three different ways by three different buyers.

The trade-off is breadth. Some spec management tools do not shine at broader sourcing or enterprise procurement. If your buyer needs to compare ten suppliers, run competitive RFQs, and manage freight analysis, this category may feel narrow. Still, for a custom packaging company where packaging design changes often, these systems can be the best operational fit.

3. Sourcing and RFQ platforms

Sourcing platforms are built for quote comparison, supplier scorecards, and controlled bidding. If your team regularly sends jobs out for corrugated shippers, display packaging, inserts, or complex printed packaging, this feature set matters. I like RFQ tools when buyers need to compare lead times, unit pricing, tool charges, setup fees, and board substitutions in one place rather than in a spread of spreadsheets and forwarded PDFs. There is a special kind of frustration that comes from trying to compare three quotes where one supplier uses pallet price, another uses per thousand, and the third hides the coating charge in an attachment nobody opened. RFQ software can at least make that chaos visible, and it can do it for a 5,000-piece run or a 250,000-piece annual buy.

What they do well is visibility. You can usually see who bid, what they offered, and how each supplier ranked on cost or service. But a good review of packaging procurement software has to be honest about the weak spots. These systems sometimes treat packaging quotes too generically. They may track price per unit but miss the reason a quote changed, like a new ink plate charge or a different insert fold. If the platform cannot hold the packaging spec along with the bid, buyers may still need manual reconciliation before issuing the PO. I’ve seen a quote in Shenzhen drop from $0.18 per unit to $0.15 per unit once the buyer agreed to a 5,000-piece MOQ and 14-day lead time, but only because the RFQ form captured the die size and finishing notes correctly.

Best fit: procurement teams with repeat bidding activity, especially where supplier competition is part of the savings strategy. Real-world usability: very good for competitive sourcing, less helpful if the main problem is internal packaging data control.

4. Replenishment and inventory-linked procurement tools

These are useful when the buying pattern is predictable. Think shipping cartons, stock mailers, standard labels, pallet stretch film, or inserts that move on a known weekly consumption curve. The best systems alert buyers when reorder points are approaching, help avoid stockouts, and reduce the panic buys that always seem to happen on Thursday afternoon. In one fulfillment center I worked with in Nashville, their biggest savings came from cutting three emergency airfreight shipments for mailers in a single quarter. I still remember the procurement manager laughing in relief when the fourth call about “urgent packaging” never came, which by that point felt like a minor miracle and probably saved about 72 labor hours across the warehouse team.

The catch is that replenishment tools are only as good as inventory data. If your warehouse counts are off by 12 percent, the software will politely automate the wrong answer. That is why I always tell teams to start with item accuracy, then decide whether they need a replenishment engine or a broader procurement suite. A clean cycle count in a plant near Louisville will do more for the output than a flashy dashboard with three layers of alerts and no trustworthy bin locations.

5. Mid-market procurement tools with lighter setup

These are often the most practical for growing packaging teams. They are easier to configure than enterprise suites, faster to deploy, and usually less painful for users who live in operations rather than procurement. For a company buying branded packaging, retail packaging, and a handful of custom inserts, a mid-market system can hit the sweet spot: enough control to reduce errors, enough simplicity to keep adoption high. A lot of those rollouts I’ve seen in the Midwest and Southeast wrap in 12 to 15 business days after proof approval if the item list is already organized.

Honestly, I think this category gets underrated because it does not sound impressive in sales presentations. Yet in factory settings, simple tools often win because people actually use them. I’ve seen beautifully engineered software fail because the receiving clerk, buyer, and packaging engineer could not agree on where to click first. A moderate system with clear workflows is often a better operational decision than a massive suite with features nobody touches. That may not make for thrilling booth chatter at a trade show in Chicago, but it makes for fewer headaches on the plant floor and fewer interrupted shifts at 7:10 a.m.

To keep the review of packaging procurement software grounded, here is the sort of practical comparison I would use in a buyer meeting:

• Enterprise suite: best for governance, weaker on packaging detail unless configured carefully.
• Spec management platform: best for artwork and item control, narrower on sourcing depth.
• RFQ platform: best for price competition, weaker on internal packaging records.
• Inventory-linked tool: best for replenishment, depends heavily on master data quality.
• Mid-market system: often the best balance for teams buying custom packaging without a large IT department.

One more detail from the floor: at a plant running custom printed boxes for subscription kits in Columbus, I watched the team use a supplier portal that looked plain but handled artwork signoff, carton spec changes, and reorder history better than a much larger procurement suite they had trialed earlier. The smaller tool won because it matched the job. That’s the kind of practical judgment this review of packaging procurement software is trying to make easier.

Review of Packaging Procurement Software: Pricing, Fees, and ROI

Pricing is where a lot of buyers get surprised, so I want to be very direct in this review of packaging procurement software. The sticker price is rarely the whole story. Some platforms charge per user, some per module, some by transaction volume, and some add supplier network fees that do not show up until late in the buying process. I have seen quotes that looked manageable at first glance and then doubled once API connectors, workflow setup, and training were added. That part always gets a grim little laugh out of me, because the invoice arrives wearing a friendly face and then quietly slips a few extra line items into the back seat.

Here is the plain-English version of what I usually see. Entry-level tools might run at $250 to $750 per month for a small team with five users and a narrow workflow, especially if the supplier count is limited to 10 or 15 vendors. Mid-market systems often move into the low five figures annually, such as $12,000 to $28,000 per year, once you include implementation, training, and support. Enterprise contracts can climb much higher, often $45,000 to $120,000 annually, especially if you need custom integrations, multiple plants, and advanced supplier collaboration. For a large packaging operation, that may still be justified, but only if the process savings are real and measurable in dollars, not just in nicer dashboards.

Hidden costs are where buyers need to stay alert. Implementation is often the biggest one, especially if your item master has duplicate codes, inconsistent dimensions, or old supplier names from a merger three years ago. Then there is training, and I do not mean a 30-minute webinar; I mean making sure the buyers, planners, packaging engineers, and finance team actually know how to use the platform in the way your plant operates. Data migration can also be a nuisance if you have hundreds or thousands of SKUs across corrugated, labels, inserts, and retail display packaging, especially when the measurements were entered in both inches and millimeters over the years.

ROI, though, can be very real. The clearest savings usually come from fewer rush orders, lower material waste, fewer spec mistakes, and faster supplier bidding cycles. If a platform prevents even two wrong-pallet orders of corrugated boxes at $6,800 each, the math starts to move quickly. If it cuts 8 labor hours a week from buyers chasing approvals, that is another hard number. And if it reduces overbuying on seasonal product packaging by 10 to 15 percent, that is the kind of improvement a finance director in Cincinnati or Rotterdam will notice without needing a five-page explanation.

I like to estimate payback using four buckets: saved labor hours, avoided expedite charges, reduced overbuying, and lower error-related scrap. One beverage client I worked with saved about $14,000 in freight alone by catching a carton spec discrepancy before release, and that was before anyone counted the time saved by not reissuing three POs. On the packaging side, they were also able to avoid a reprint on 9,600 labels after catching a coating mismatch two days before the scheduled run. That is the practical side of a strong review of packaging procurement software: it should help you see where the money leaks, then plug the biggest holes first.

For guidance on packaging and sustainability-related supplier considerations, I also like to keep an eye on industry resources such as the Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute and packaging industry resource network and the Forest Stewardship Council when paperboard sourcing or certification matters. Not every plant needs those checks, but if you sell into retail channels with brand requirements, they matter more than most software demos admit, especially when a retailer asks for traceability on paperboard sourced from Quebec or Finland.

How to Choose the Right Packaging Procurement Software

The smartest way to approach a review of packaging procurement software is not by starting with features. Start with your packaging workflow. How many SKUs do you buy? How often do print files change? How many suppliers are approved? How much time gets lost in approval bottlenecks? If you know those answers, you will understand which software fits and which one is just dressed-up admin. A plant with 80 stock items in corrugated and labels has a different need than a cosmetics company in Los Angeles managing 240 decorated cartons with three seasonal launches.

I always advise buyers to build a checklist around packaging realities, not generic procurement buzzwords. For example, a plant buying 40 standard corrugated items has a very different problem from a cosmetics brand buying decorated folding cartons with monthly artwork updates. One needs replenishment accuracy and ERP links; the other needs version control, proof routing, and strong supplier communication. A third case might be a fulfillment center ordering custom mailers in three sizes, where the big issue is keeping minimum order quantities and reorder points visible before inventory falls below the line. If your mailers are consumed at 1,200 units a week, the system should know that number, not guess.

What integrations matter most

ERP integration matters first because procurement data that does not reach finance or inventory quickly tends to create duplicate work. WMS integration matters if your packaging stock lives close to production and must be consumed in a controlled way. Inventory systems matter if you carry labels, carton blanks, inserts, or void fill in stock. Finance tools matter for invoice matching and budget control. Supplier portals matter when buyers need vendors to acknowledge specs, dates, and artwork changes without endless email chains.

I would also pay attention to whether the tool has API support or only manual CSV imports. Manual imports can work, but they usually become painful after the first 300 records. When I helped a co-packer update its item master, the lack of proper integration meant one planner spent nearly four hours every week reconciling the packaging list between procurement and inventory. That is not a software problem alone; it is a process problem. Still, the right integration can shave off that recurring waste and cut the weekly reconciliation time from four hours to about 45 minutes.

How long implementation really takes

Simple implementations may take three to six weeks if the workflows are basic and the data is clean. More complex packaging operations with multiple plants and ERP integrations can take several months. The longest step is often master data cleanup, not the software configuration itself. People underestimate this all the time. They assume their item codes are “mostly fine” and then discover three names for the same corrugated shipper, two different board specs, and a supplier record with an old address from a facility that closed in 2019. I saw one team in Toronto spend 11 business days just reconciling carton names before they could even start the pilot.

In my experience, a successful rollout should include discovery, configuration, data import, pilot testing, user training, and a controlled full rollout. I prefer a pilot with real examples: a corrugated shipper, a branded carton, and a label reprint scenario. Those three jobs expose almost everything that can go wrong, from spec errors to approval logic to supplier response timing. If a platform survives those three, it usually deserves a second look. For a good implementation, I like to see proof approval to go-live land somewhere around 12 to 15 business days for a mid-market setup, and closer to 45 to 90 days for a multi-plant enterprise rollout with ERP mapping.

Buyer checklist before you sign

1. Confirm the system can handle print revisions and spec version control.
2. Ask how MOQ, lead time, and supplier alternates are tracked.
3. Check whether artwork approvals can be tied to the purchase record.
4. Test a real RFQ using your own carton dimensions or label sizes.
5. Request a sample implementation plan with data migration steps and named owners.
6. Make sure the reporting shows what procurement and operations both need.

That checklist sounds basic, but it saves pain. Here is an example from a supplier negotiation I sat through in Shenzhen: the buyer wanted a lower unit price on a retail display carton, while the supplier argued that the current spec had a fragile coating and a higher spoilage risk. The software they were testing could show both bids, but only because the packaging team had already entered the coating and varnish details accurately. If the spec data had been fuzzy, the comparison would have been useless. That is why the best review of packaging procurement software keeps circling back to data quality and workflow reality.

For Packaging Operations That sell custom packaging or depend on branded presentation, having a well-structured product catalog also helps align purchasing with design. If you need support materials, I’d look at Custom Packaging Products alongside your procurement process, because software alone does not solve sourcing if the underlying packaging offer is unclear, especially when a 350gsm C1S artboard carton and a 400gsm SBS carton look similar on a screen but behave differently on press and in transit.

What Features Matter Most in a Review of Packaging Procurement Software?

For the most useful review of packaging procurement software, I keep coming back to a handful of features that directly affect packaging buying, packaging compliance, and the day-to-day rhythm of a plant or sourcing office. The first is spec management, because packaging is built on dimensions, substrates, coatings, closures, and print details that must stay accurate. The second is approval routing, because a carton proof or label revision often needs signoff from procurement, engineering, quality, and marketing. The third is supplier collaboration, since the best packaging procurement software should reduce the number of back-and-forth emails about artwork, lead times, and alternate materials.

I also pay close attention to reporting. Basic spend reports are useful, but packaging teams usually need more specific visibility: open POs by SKU, reorder point exceptions, supplier performance by on-time delivery, and spend by packaging category. That is where procurement analytics starts earning its keep. If a tool can show that a board grade change drove a 7 percent cost increase across twelve SKUs, that is actionable. If it can only show total spend by month, it is harder to make a real decision from the output.

Another feature that matters more than buyers expect is audit history. Packaging changes tend to happen in the middle of a real workflow, not in a neat software calendar. A new regulatory statement, a retailer update, or a supplier material shortage can trigger a revision that must be traceable later. Good packaging procurement software keeps that trail visible so people can see who approved what, when it changed, and which version was used at release. That protects both quality and budgets, and it can save a team from a very long afternoon with a corrective action report.

Finally, I look for ease of use. A tool can have every technical feature in the catalog and still fail if a buyer does not trust it enough to use it under pressure. In practice, the best systems strike a balance between depth and clarity. They let a packaging engineer attach a dieline, a buyer compare RFQs, and a plant planner understand the next reorder date without opening six tabs. That balance is a big reason the strongest review of packaging procurement software is always about real workflows, not just feature lists.

Our Recommendation: Best Fit by Packaging Team Type

If you asked me to choose based on what I’ve seen on factory floors and in buyer meetings, I would not hand out a single winner for every operation. A review of packaging procurement software should end with fit, not hype. The best platform depends on how complicated your packaging spend really is and how much control your team needs over specs, suppliers, and approvals. A small label converter in Cleveland does not need the same stack as a multinational brand owner with plants in Mexico, Poland, and Malaysia.

Best for lean buying teams: choose a mid-market purchasing tool or light procurement workflow system that keeps approvals, vendor records, and PO creation simple. These teams usually do not need a monster suite. They need speed, clean records, and enough structure to keep the wrong box size from being ordered twice. If the team is only three people and the monthly packaging spend is $80,000, a lower-friction tool often beats an enterprise system that takes half a quarter to configure.

Best for multi-site manufacturers: choose an enterprise procurement suite if you have the IT support and the discipline to keep item data clean. The audit trail, budget control, and ERP integration can be worth it, especially when dozens of users buy corrugated, labels, inserts, and retail packaging across multiple plants. For a group with 18 warehouses and one shared AP team, the control alone can be worth the annual contract.

Best for packaging-heavy operations with artwork and spec governance: choose a packaging specification management platform or a tool with strong version control. If your work revolves around frequent design changes, decorated packaging, or custom printed boxes, this style of software usually creates the most value because it protects the item record as well as the purchase process. That is especially true when proofs travel between Chicago, Bristol, and Dongguan on a weekly basis.

Best for custom packaging businesses: prioritize quote turnaround, supplier coordination, and revision tracking over broad sourcing bells and whistles. A smaller, well-integrated platform can outperform a larger system if it fits your workflow better. I have seen that happen more than once, and honestly, it is usually the smarter decision when the team is lean and the product line changes quickly, such as a shop running 25 custom carton formats and three different finishing lines.

If I had to put it bluntly: do not buy the biggest platform just because it sounds impressive. Buy the one your buyers, packaging engineers, and finance team will actually use on a busy Tuesday when two new carton specs, a delayed label proof, and a supplier price change all land at once. That practical lens is the whole point of this review of packaging procurement software.

Next Steps After Reading This Review of Packaging Procurement Software

Now that you have a practical review of packaging procurement software, the next move is to turn opinion into a shortlist. Start by defining your must-have workflows. Then collect three real packaging purchase scenarios from your own operation: one corrugated item, one printed or branded item, and one repeat buy with a likely reorder cycle. Those examples will tell you far more than a generic demo script ever will. If possible, use a carton that ships 2,400 units a month, a label with a 4-color process, and an insert pack that changes quarterly.

Create a scorecard that compares vendors on five things: integrations, pricing transparency, packaging-specific features, implementation effort, and support quality. Give each category a number from 1 to 5 and make the evaluators explain their scores in writing. I also recommend scheduling demos with actual carton specs, label sizes, or insert orders rather than asking vendors to show a fictional workflow. Vendors are usually very good at fictional workflows. Real ones reveal the truth quickly, especially when you ask them to quote a 10,000-piece run with freight to Ohio and a 7-business-day turnaround.

Assign one procurement lead, one packaging engineer, and one finance stakeholder to the evaluation. That mix prevents the usual blind spots. Procurement sees spend control, packaging sees spec risk, and finance sees the invoice and payback story. If all three agree, you are probably close to the right decision. If they do not, you have learned something useful before signing a contract, which is a much cheaper place to learn it than after a three-year agreement is on the books.

My final advice is straightforward. Use this review of packaging procurement software to narrow the field, then test the finalists with the kind of orders that actually cause trouble in your plant. That is the only way to know whether the platform will help you buy better, protect specs, and cut the waste that hides inside packaging procurement every single week, from the first carton approval in the morning to the last supplier confirmation after 4:00 p.m.