The Situation
A beverage manufacturer was adding a new VFFS pouch line for a 200ml drink pack in a multi-layer laminated film (PET/PE). The plant already had CIJ on their existing rigid bottle line. The vendor who supplied their existing CIJ recommended the same technology for the new line and had submitted a quotation of Rs 7.5 lakh for a suitable unit with installation.
The plant manager called for an independent review after the procurement head raised a question: "Is CIJ the right choice for laminated flexible film" The advisory engagement lasted three weeks.
What the Advisory Evaluated
Step 1: Define the Application Requirements
Production parameters: VFFS line at 80 bags/minute, 3 shifts, 26 days/month. Substrate: PET/PE laminate with a smooth outer surface. Print content: date, batch, MRP — variable data only, no graphics. Print height: 5mm, two lines. Environment: ambient 28–38°C, RH 55–70%.
Step 2: Evaluate CIJ on This Application
CIJ can print on PET/PE laminate but requires a solvent-based ink with adhesion promoter. Print quality is adequate. However, CIJ ink marks on smooth laminate are prone to smearing if the pouch surface is handled immediately after printing — relevant for downstream stacking and counting. Additionally, CIJ jets cannot be positioned as close to the seal area as TTO, requiring a longer print-to-seal gap than the line layout allowed.
Step 3: Evaluate TTO on This Application
TTO is standard technology for VFFS flexible packaging on laminated film. The ribbon-to-film transfer produces a dry, smear-proof mark immediately after printing. No solvent, no adhesion promoter, no drying time. The printhead is integrated into the VFFS machine jaw area, requiring no external positioning. Print quality on PET/PE laminate is excellent — high-contrast, fully barcode-scannable.
Step 4: Running Cost Comparison at 2.5M Pouches/Month
| Cost Element | CIJ | TTO |
|---|---|---|
| Ink / ribbon annual cost | Rs 4.8 lakh (ink + make-up) | Rs 1.8 lakh (ribbon) |
| Printhead / service | Rs 0.8 lakh | Rs 0.5 lakh |
| Downtime (estimated) | Rs 1.2 lakh (jetting stoppages) | Rs 0.3 lakh |
| Total annual running cost | Rs 6.8 lakh | Rs 2.6 lakh |
| Capital cost | Rs 7.5 lakh | Rs 4.2 lakh (integrated unit) |
TTO running cost was Rs 4.2 lakh per year lower than CIJ, and the capital cost was also Rs 3.3 lakh lower. Over 5 years, TTO saved Rs 24.3 lakh in total cost of ownership.
The Recommendation
The advisory recommended TTO with a specific unit integrated into the VFFS machine jaw area from a vendor with service coverage in the plant's location. Two vendors were shortlisted for competitive quotation. Both came in below the original CIJ quote.
What Happened
The plant purchased TTO from one of the shortlisted vendors at Rs 4.2 lakh. The CIJ vendor was informed that the specification did not suit their technology. The TTO installation was completed in one day, integrated into the existing VFFS frame. First-year running cost came in at Rs 2.8 lakh — within the projected range.
The plant later extended TTO to a second VFFS line based on the same recommendation, without requiring a second advisory engagement.
What Would Have Happened Without the Advisory
The plant would have installed CIJ at Rs 7.5 lakh capital, run it at Rs 6.8 lakh/year, and encountered smear problems requiring a substrate pretreatment addition or ink reformulation — both adding cost and downtime. The total 5-year cost would have been approximately Rs 41.5 lakh vs Rs 18.2 lakh with TTO.