Most packaging teams know when an artwork approval process feels slow. Fewer can say exactly how slow it is, where time is lost, or how many revision rounds are normal for their own portfolio.
That makes improvement difficult.
If you want to speed up artwork approval, start by measuring three things: approval rounds, revisions per job, and right-first-time rate. These numbers give packaging, brand, regulatory and QA teams a simple baseline for understanding whether delays come from the review itself or from problems earlier in the process.
There is no universal number of approval rounds that is "too many." A regulatory-heavy pharmaceutical label and a simple FMCG packaging update will naturally have different requirements.
The useful question is:
How many rounds does your artwork normally need, and what causes the extra rounds?
When an artwork project takes too long, it is easy to blame the people reviewing it.
A regulatory approver may take two days to respond. A brand manager may request another change. QA may identify an issue in the next round.
But the review itself is often only one part of the problem.
Collabra describes common approval delays as process issues: unclear ownership, undefined stages and uncertainty about which file is current can all cause artwork to stall. A structured workflow gives each file a clear stage, owner and next action.
In practice, an approval can slow down because:
This matters because adding pressure to reviewers does not fix an upstream problem.
If the artwork enters review with missing information, the review round becomes a discovery exercise rather than a final quality check.
You do not need a complicated analytics system to establish a baseline. Start with three metrics.
An approval round is one complete cycle of artwork submission, stakeholder feedback, revision and resubmission.
For example:
Initial artwork → Review → Changes → Resubmission → Approval
That is one revision cycle.
If the same artwork goes through another review and another set of changes, it has entered a second round.
The important thing is to define the metric consistently. Decide whether your team counts internal pre-checks, regulatory checks, printer proofs or only formal stakeholder approval rounds.
Track the number of revision cycles required for each completed artwork job.
A simple formula is:
Total revision rounds ÷ Number of completed artworks = Average revisions per artwork
This number is useful because it shows whether rework is concentrated in a few difficult projects or is happening across the portfolio.
For example, if 100 artworks require 180 revision rounds, your average is 1.8 revisions per artwork.
Do not use the average alone. Also look at the distribution. Ten difficult artworks with five rounds each can distort the average and hide the fact that most projects are straightforward.
Right-first-time (RFT) measures how often artwork reaches the defined approval point without requiring a revision.
A simple formula is:
RFT rate = Artworks approved without revision ÷ Total artworks × 100
For example, if 35 of 50 artworks are approved without a revision:
35 ÷ 50 × 100 = 70% RFT
Your definition should be explicit. Does "right first time" mean no changes from anyone? No substantive changes? No changes after the first formal review?
Choose one definition and use it consistently.
Use the following table as a starting framework for your own baseline. The red flags are diagnostic signals, not universal industry standards. Your acceptable level will depend on artwork complexity, number of markets, regulatory requirements and stakeholder count.
| Metric | How to measure | Red flag to investigate |
|---|---|---|
| Approval rounds | Count review → revision → resubmission cycles | The same jobs repeatedly require multiple cycles |
| Revisions per artwork | Total revision rounds ÷ completed artworks | Average is increasing over time |
| Right-first-time rate | Artworks approved without revision ÷ total artworks | RFT falls after process or team changes |
| Time to approval | First formal submission → final approval | Long waiting periods between actions |
| Late changes | Changes introduced after artwork review starts | Frequent copy, regulatory or asset changes late in the process |
| Approval ownership | Percentage of jobs with named approvers | Jobs regularly wait for "someone to review" |
The goal is not to chase an arbitrary number.
The goal is to identify why the number moves.
A slow artwork approval process often starts before the first review.
A brief that says "update the packaging" is not enough for a complex artwork project.
The design team may need final copy, market information, regulatory requirements, dimensions, mandatory claims, language versions, printer specifications and reference assets.
If these inputs are missing, the artwork becomes a moving target.
Late changes to ingredients, nutrition information, claims, legal text or product details can trigger another artwork cycle.
The reviewer is not creating the delay. The process is asking the reviewer to approve information that was not stable when artwork production began.
Logos, images, barcodes, translations, icons, colour references and other production assets can arrive at different times.
If the artwork team starts before the required inputs are ready, missing assets can create avoidable rework.
A workflow can stop even when everyone agrees that the artwork needs to move forward.
If nobody knows who owns the next approval, the file waits.
A clear approval workflow should identify:
Version control is another common source of unnecessary rework. When stakeholders comment on different versions, teams can spend time reconciling feedback instead of improving the artwork.
A single source of truth and a clear revision history make it easier to see what changed and which version is current. Collabra's guidance on version control explains how tracking revisions can reduce confusion and artwork errors.
If you want to [speed up artwork approval], start by looking at the workflow around the review—not just the review itself.
A useful real-world reference comes from Collabra's work with Santa Maria.
The project covered more than 600 artworks across markets, suppliers and printers. According to Collabra's case study, the team focused on artwork architecture and planning before production, with structured content management, coordination, proofing and proactive scheduling.
The reported outcome was an average of 1.5 revisions per artwork, alongside more predictable timelines and clearer decision-making.
The important lesson is not that every packaging team should target exactly 1.5 revisions.
The project demonstrates something more useful: the number of revisions can be influenced by what happens before formal approval starts.
Planning the artwork architecture, resolving issues early and establishing the production logic helped reduce reactive corrections during execution.
That is why a revision benchmark should always be paired with process data.
If your team averages 3.5 revisions per artwork, the next question should not simply be "How do we get this down to 1.5?"
Ask:
What happens between the first brief and the first review that causes those extra revisions?
Some improvements can be introduced immediately. Others require a change to the underlying process.
Start with changes that make the current workflow easier to follow:
These changes are relatively simple but can reveal where the process is breaking.
If the same problems continue, look at the workflow itself.
A structured artwork approval process can centralize files, feedback, responsibilities, stages and approval history. This is particularly useful when many markets, suppliers, brands or regulatory stakeholders are involved.
Collabra's artwork management guidance highlights centralized workflows, version control, defined approval processes and clear ownership as ways to reduce communication problems and unnecessary rework.
The key distinction is simple:
Quick fixes make the existing process easier to follow. Structural fixes change how the process works.
You can establish a useful baseline without analysing your entire packaging portfolio.
Pick a representative two-week period and track every artwork that enters formal review.
For each job, record:
At the end of two weeks, calculate:
Average revisions per artwork
Right-first-time rate
Average approval time
Then group revisions by cause.
For example:
| Revision reason | Number of occurrences |
|---|---|
| Copy or data change | |
| Regulatory change | |
| Brand/design feedback | |
| Missing asset | |
| Version confusion | |
| Printer/prepress issue | |
| Other |
This last step is often the most revealing.
If most revisions are caused by late data changes, improving reviewer response times will not solve the main problem.
If many jobs are waiting for specific approvers, ownership and escalation may be the issue.
If version confusion appears repeatedly, version control and file governance deserve attention.
Once you have two weeks of data, choose one bottleneck to address first.
For example:
Problem: Artwork averages 2.8 revision rounds.
Finding: Most additional rounds are caused by late regulatory copy.
Action: Introduce a mandatory regulatory-content checkpoint before artwork production.
Measure: Compare revision rounds and RFT before and after the change.
This approach is more useful than simply setting a target such as "reduce approvals to two rounds."
The purpose of benchmarking is to understand the system behind the number.
A packaging team with 1.5 revisions per artwork but long waiting periods may have a different problem from a team with 2.5 revisions but very short approval times.
Measure both rework and waiting time.
A faster artwork approval process does not necessarily mean asking reviewers to work faster.
It means giving them a better-defined job to do.
Start by measuring approval rounds, revisions per artwork and right-first-time rate. Then identify where the extra work originates: briefs, data, assets, ownership, feedback or version control.
From there, you can decide whether a quick process adjustment is enough or whether your team needs a more structured artwork approval workflow.
For additional guidance, see Collabra's resources on artwork management best practices and version control for artwork.
If you want an outside baseline, consider a Packaging Operations Health Check. An external review can help benchmark your current process, identify where rework enters the workflow and highlight practical opportunities to improve approval speed.
1 min read
Tilda Eriksson : 2026-10-06 09:45
Most artwork operations do not become complicated overnight. They grow gradually as teams add new markets, stakeholders, systems and workarounds to...
1 min read
Ekaterina Skalatskaia : 2025-03-12 07:51
Unlock the secrets behind successful companies' artwork management and approval processes that can transform your business.
1 min read
Ekaterina Skalatskaia : 2024-10-14 08:15
Ever feel like getting packaging approved is like trying to solve a Rubik’s cube—while it’s on fire?
Tilda Eriksson