Cut-order coordination is where planning quality is proven
Most corrugated teams have planning meetings, production plans, and KPI reports. Yet execution still drifts when coordination is not synchronized in real time between commercial demand, planning constraints, and shop-floor conditions.
Why this is now a competitiveness issue
As AI and digital tools become more available, the competitive gap increasingly comes from decision speed and reliability, not from software ownership alone. Stanford's AI Index highlights the pace of adoption and cost reduction in AI systems, which raises the baseline for operational responsiveness across industries.
What robust planning coordination looks like
- Shared planning context: sales, planning, and production reference the same status model.
- Constraint-aware sequencing: rules account for material, machine, and quality constraints.
- Live execution feedback: deviations are visible quickly, not after end-of-shift reports.
- Fast exception paths: priority changes have clear approvals and traceability.
Typical anti-patterns
- Frequent manual reprioritization with no decision history
- Delayed production feedback into planning tools
- No shared definition of what counts as a schedule breach
- No clear owner for cross-team conflicts
A practical KPI set
- Schedule adherence by line and shift
- Planning change frequency after release
- Exception response time
- Order completion predictability
Execution takeaway
Planning quality is less about the initial plan and more about how fast teams converge after reality changes. Digital coordination systems should be judged by that standard.
Explore COROL planning capabilities
Sources
- Stanford HAI AI Index 2025 - adoption and AI economics - https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report
- IEA - Industry tracking context - https://www.iea.org/energy-system/industry