The Hidden Cost of Choosing the “Right” Material Too Late
In many organizations, material selection is treated as a downstream decision: something to be finalized once product design, cost targets, or timelines are already defined.
On Excel, the material may be “right”. In practice, choosing it too late often becomes one of the most expensive mistakes in a project.
When late material decisions become a marketing problem
Delaying the adoption of a new material or innovation is not only a technical or operational issue — it is also a marketing risk.
In categories with long development cycles, when a competitor introduces a material-driven innovation that significantly impacts consumer perception or sales, recovering those customers can be extremely difficult.
A well-known example in Argentina was when a global bottled water brand introduced flavored water: the innovation reshaped the category, and competitors that reacted late struggled to regain market share.
Material decisions directly influence time-to-market, differentiation, and brand relevance. Choosing too late often means arriving after the market has already moved on.
The strategic timing dilemma: when is the right moment to adopt?
Many greener or more sustainable materials exist today — but often at a higher cost due to limited scale or immature infrastructure.
At the same time, consumers increasingly demand sustainability, and brand owners face pressure from retailers, regulators, and investors.
This raises a strategic question: When is the right moment to adopt a new material?
The answer is rarely binary. It requires:
- Understanding how quickly scale can be achieved.
- Anticipating future regulatory requirements, not only current ones.
- Evaluating recycling and waste-management infrastructure across regions — especially for companies exporting to multiple markets with different systems and regulations.
Late adoption can mean losing relevance; premature adoption can mean unsustainable economics. Navigating this tension requires early, informed decision-making.
The hidden cost of organizational fragmentation
Another frequent cause of late or suboptimal material choices is organizational fragmentation.
Engineering optimizes for performance.
Procurement focuses on cost.
Regulatory teams enter late in the process.
Manufacturing is asked to adapt at the end.
In this setup, specialty materials are often evaluated through a commodity lens, making it difficult for procurement-led approaches to capture their full value. The result is not cost optimization but missed opportunity.
Material selection is not just a purchasing decision. It is a cross-functional, strategic process that spans the entire value chain.
The value of a multi-material perspective
Material decisions are also constrained by who is making them.
A single-material manufacturer is naturally limited by its own portfolio, patents, and development roadmap. Its role is to sell what it produces.
A multi-material approach, by contrast, enables a different logic:
- Comparing alternatives objectively.
- Selecting the most suitable material for a specific application, process, and market.
- Remaining flexible as regulations, costs, and technologies evolve.
This independence becomes increasingly valuable as material complexity, sustainability expectations, and regulatory scrutiny grow.
The takeaway
Choosing the “right” material too late is rarely a technical failure. It is a strategic and organizational failure.
In a world of longer development cycles, faster market shifts, and rising sustainability pressure, competitive advantage belongs to those who integrate material thinking early — connecting technical, regulatory, commercial, and market perspectives before constraints are locked in.
In material-intensive industries, how and when you choose matters as much as what you choose.
