Process automation case study using the ROI-FIRST approach
Packaging Materials Procurement for Production
Industry
Veterinary Pharmaceuticals - Manufacturing
Date
Jun 10, 2026
Recommendation
✅ Automate
Time saved
From 100 h to 40 h per purchasing cycle
ROI Automation, recommendation and costs
COP
currency $:
Level of Automation | % Automation | Cases x Month | Time x Case (hours) |
|---|---|---|---|
Medium - stage assignment and automatic notifications, digital approvals with side-by-side artwork comparison, an approved-artwork database, scheduled supplier follow-up emails and real-time dashboards. Quotation negotiation and technical reviews remain manual | 60 | 1 | 100 |
Personas Involucradas | Nivel de Cargo Promedio | Average Monthly Salary | Real Company Cost with Benefits |
|---|---|---|---|
6 | Mixed: General Manager/Director (Level 1, x2), Senior Analyst (Level 4, x3), Assistant/Operator (Level 6, x1) | 3.070.000 | 4.707.231 |
Monthly Operational Cost | Annual Operational Cost | Estimated Monthly Savings |
|---|---|---|
2.802.010 | 33.624.120 | 1.681.206 |
Estimated Annual Savings | Year 1 Investment | Net Benefit Year 1 |
|---|---|---|
20.174.472 | 10.170.000 | 10.004.472 |
Cumulative Net Benefit 3 Years | FTE Equivalente Liberado |
|---|---|
31.993.416 | 0.6 |
Power in Numbers
98.4
ROI Year 1 (%)
6
Payback (months)
1.98
Cost/Benefit ratio
✅ Automate
60% of this process is automatable with a conservative estimate. The volume is low, one cycle per month, but each cycle consumes about 100 hours and two weeks across six people, and the cost of a mistake is high: an outdated artwork means remade printing plates and a delayed production run. The financial case is positive but moderate: COP $20,174,472 in annual savings against a COP $10,170,000 Year 1 investment, a 98.4% ROI with a 6-month payback. The stronger argument is accountability. Today responsibility bounces between areas and nobody can see where the cycle is stuck without asking. A previous attempt with a shared form failed because it added work and did not notify the next person; the flow has to remove steps, not add them. Once in place, the same licenses can cover product returns and export preparation, which show the same symptoms.
Signs of inefficiency detected
High manual follow-up: every purchasing cycle requires chasing suppliers and internal approvers by phone, WhatsApp and email. A task nobody owns: responsibility for delays bounces between Purchasing, Marketing and Quality, and each area points to another. Approvals without traceability: the proof is approved by three areas with no record of who approved which version or when. No status visibility: nobody knows which stage a purchase is in without asking. Unknown real time: the two-week cycle is an estimate, not a measurement. Artwork errors: approving against an outdated artwork has forced suppliers to remake printing plates. Steps outside the system: a previous shared form was abandoned because it added work and did not notify the next person. Parallel inefficiencies were identified in product returns (at least 3 per week, 7 people, 2 to 3 weeks of rework, transport costs not always recorded) and in monthly export preparation, which is handled verbally by 6 people with no record in the quality management system.