Finishing Web Inkjet Printing, Part 2

Last week we discussed the components that you need to put together a finishing line for a web-fed inkjet system.  So now you have a good idea of what you need.  But now you have to look at your own workflow, customer requirements, and need for flexibility, and decide whether this is to be an inline system, or broken up into sections.    So the question becomes more strategic, and it is one only you can answer.   The answer is that it depends on your product mix, your service level requirements, and your operator skills.

If you ask the printer manufacturers, they often would prefer that you separate the printing from the cutting and finishing.  The reason is simple:  Most inkjet systems will run with little downtime if they are kept running smoothly from roll-to-roll.  All systems will suffer productivity losses if they are stopped and started while in production.  Some will experience more downtime and waste than others (an analysis for a different day), but they all will be less productive if the systems are stopped and started in synch with the needs of finishing equipment.  And this may be your best choice.  But it also may not be.

By separating the finishing from the printing systems you get both productivity enhancements and detractions.  The price you pay for separating the two processes is that you need more labor to handle the printed roll transfer between printing and finishing, you can experience more product waste due to roll damage and setup, and you can lose time in getting the first piece out the door.  You can also increase your risk of wasting a specific recipient’s piece, if your product is personalized, causing more pieces to be reordered.  You also have extra costs of an additional extra unwinder and rewinder.

What you gain by separating print from cut is also important to look at:  You get an important buffer between the printer and the finishing system, which allows your most expensive component to be as productive as possible.  If you have many different product sizes or types, you get the flexibility of using one of several different finishing lines depending on the product type, without a time-consuming mechanical changeover.  Although specs are changing all the time, usually finishing lines can run faster than the print engines, allowing them to “catch up” to production if there was a mechanical maintenance item on them that needed to be replaced, like knives or other wear parts.

The reciprocal discussion can be made for keeping everything in line.  You gain in less labor, faster first-product out-the door, lower chance of losing a piece or damaging part of a roll in the process.  But you give up finishing flexibility, and if any part of the entire system goes down, the entire line gets shut down.

That decision gets more complex due to the growing sophistication of in-line finishing systems.   One firm has been a pioneer in developing multi-capability in-line finishing, and can saddle-stitch, cold glue, or adhesive bind in-line with most continuous printers.   A recent installation in Italy, in-line with a continuous web ink jet printer shows that it can be a great choice, under the right conditions.  The finishing portion can divert printed sheets to either the saddle-stitcher, or the adhesive perfect binder based upon a sheet barcode.   This might be the ultimate in in-line finishing.

All of these pros and cons to inline vs. near-line discussion can be quantified, and your specific “best configuration” really depends on the financial and service level requirement set.  Here again is an area that an independent expert can become an invaluable resource in helping you determine how you should approach your new venture.

Finishing Web Inkjet Printing,  Part 1

This is the first installment of a 2-part series on web inkjet finishing.  This installment will cover the tactical considerations that need to be considered when building your finishing line, and the next installment will be the more strategic question of whether your system components should be in-line or near-line.

The thought of moving to high speed color inkjet printing is very seductive, with the availability of fully variable images, continuously improving quality, runs as short as quantity of one, and the nearly non-existent expense of make-ready, but there is a lot to analyze and decide after making a decision to do it.

After you decide on a printing technology and vendor, the next biggest consideration is finishing.  High speed color inkjet printers are web fed, and there needs to be all of the cut/stack/fold/bind operations that any web printing process requires.  But these processes are handled differently because of the differences in how digital print creates a finished piece as compared to traditional offset printing.  As you are aware, the digital printing process prints one complete book or mailpiece at a time, minimizing or eliminating the need for collating.  Depending on your end products, there are some strategic decisions to make, and some tactical ones, too.

The tactical decisions are the end-product-specific things that you need to finish your printed piece:  Do you need to perforate, punch, stack, slit, slit-then-merge 2 or 3 webs, or fold?  Your finishing vendor can determine the modules and accessories you need based on your product descriptions, and these selections are generally fairly straightforward.

Perfing/punching decisions are broken into two parts:  Static punching and perforating usually gets placed before the first print engine.  This is a device that allows you to create the tractor or pin-feed holes along the outside edges of the paper, and cross perfs at each page if you have legacy bursting/folding equipment that you need to use.  Don’t forget the web cleaner so that chads and paper dust is minimized going into the print engine.

Dynamic punching and perfing can be triggered by either barcodes or other queue marks that are inserted in the margins by the print file and give you the flexibility of placing horizontal and vertical perforations, either partial or full width, on only selected pages.

Then you need to understand how you are going to bind.  If you come from traditional printing, binding is a bit different in the digital world, since you can print an entire book or other document sequentially. As a result, little or no collation is necessary, except for getting covers on publications and books, or getting your printed stack into an envelope.  So your standard pocket-style binders or inserters are generally not going to be suited for this new product stream.  You will need to investigate binding devices that will handle the new product stream.  Again, your binding equipment vendor can help you make this selection based on your end product.  The considerations for digital print binding are much broader than they were just a few years ago, with choices that include stitching, perfect binding and even a cold-glue binding option.

Now that you have the right components and modules to finish your product, you need to decide whether they should all run as a single production line, allowing you to load roll paper in one end and out comes a finished book, mailpiece, or other product, or break the line up into two or more pieces.  That issue we will discuss in the next installment.

Just us next week for Part 2 of this post! 

It’s hard to believe that I’m finally at the age when I can say, “I remember when. . .” Just like those “old codgers” who used to remember technologies and processes so foreign to me back in the early 90s as a young twenty-four-year-old, wet-behind-the-ears editor of Printing News for whom digital printing technology was no big deal because, well, didn’t we always have computers?

On the cover of one of my first issues of Printing News was my first disaster. It was back when (then) Indigo E-Prints were only sold in packs — I mean pairs — and the first pair was being installed at a facility in Manhattan. There in the headline, in 36-point type or whatever we were using at the time, I called them MAN Rolands.

Anyway, let’s not talk about that. I began covering digital production technologies that day and spent a lot of time interviewing printers and listening to accolades and complaints and walking trade shows in shoes that were comfortable but didn’t match my clothes.

It’s funny how certain things stand out to you, and after covering digital production for however many years, there was one product — a simple product — that stood out to me and still does today.

It was at a time when the quality of toner-based production was still rapidly evolving and graphic designers were still suspicious and critical, and rightfully so. It was a scoring machine designed specifically for toner-based presses. By scoring the folds first, it vastly minimized the classic issue at the time, cracking across the fold. I don’t know why it sticks out to me as being so important, but for some reason, of all the technologies I covered in those Printing News years, it does.

So here’s my Friday question, and I’d really like some input on this from Digital Nirvana readers. Is there a technology like that for 1:1 printing? Something that, to you, stands out as being a “critical turning point” in the area of workflow, productivity, inspection, data management, cross-channel integration, or anything else?

Tell me a story, give me a memory. If you had to pick one critical, turning point technology that you feel fundamentally changed (or is changing) this market, I want to know what stands out to you.

After all, I told you about the “MAN Rolands.” You owe it to me.

When to use which one, and the need for flexibility!

Every day we hear about tools and programs for improving operating performance. There are many of them, with more versions coming out all the time. They include TOC, Lean, Six Sigma, ISO, CMM and BPI/BPM. Some, such as Six Sigma and ISO, have rigorous training and certification programs which are major projects to undertake in themselves. What is a company to do to understand which to choose, and possibly even when?

The answer to this question requires an organization to clearly define goals, timing, and the rationale for beginning at all. Is there a specific issue, or is there a client/industry mandate, or is the business looking to establish a base for optimizing performance overall? A comprehensive overview is impossible in a short piece such as this, so I anticipate this distillation may provoke some lively feedback and discussion.

TOC – Theory of Constraints

• Focus: identify constraints or limitations for a task or process
• Action: eliminate the constraint
• Results: maximize the throughput
• Limitation: usually targeted to a single task/function

“Build it and they will come.”

LEAN

• Focus: eliminate waste, operate just in time
• Action: make to order, optimize single piece flow
• Results: rework eliminated , reduced inventory, reduced floor space, reduced cycle time
• Limitation: difficult in a project oriented business more effective with ongoing production

“Don’t build it until it is needed.”

SIX SIGMA

• Focus: variation in a process, tracking error/incident statistics and cause
• Action: DMAIC – Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control
• Results: find and eliminate sources of variation, can help with complex problems due to structure
• Limitations: rigorous, statistical intensive approach, can lead to analysis paralysis; cost for six sigma training and certification can be high.

“Build it exactly to customer specification.”

ISO

• Focus: documenting the process
• Action: document the existing process in detail in a structured way, and audit compliance to the documented process
• Results: consistent and repeatable process drives highly repeatable outcomes, improved supplier quality
• Limitations: focus is on documentary evidence, so a poor process can be documented and followed and certification still achieved. Corrective action focuses on the documentation. ISO is a costly system if certification is pursued.

“Document what you do and do what you document.”

BPI/BPM

• Focus: define, analyze, and improve cross-functional business process
• Action: map the existing process, define tasks and inputs and outputs for each, identify and remove gaps and overlaps, manage with metrics and link actions to results
• Results: refined and reengineered process with reduced cycle time and cost, and increased first pass yield.
• Limitations: requires top down support to be truly effective, scope of process needs to be clearly defined, must apply the appropriate problem solving tools and project management skills

“Manage as an enterprise around meeting overall corporate goals; use the right tools as applicable.”

Companies need to have a clear understanding of their goals and needs, and a measure of their tolerance for change. The urgency for improvement is another critical factor. Finally, consider what skills you need to add, and/or assistance you may require to most efficiently and effectively address your needs and the tool you choose. This can reduce the time to achieve results and improve the probability of success.

What is your organization doing to improve its value for the shareholders and stakeholders? Companies in general, and specifically those in the print and communication industry, have been working hard to improve profits and increase EBITDA as the economy continues to be depressed. Our industry not only has the economy to deal with, we are also contending with increased communication options and new technologies. Companies have downsized, right-sized, consolidated, and merged. This has helped maintain profits and EBITDA in the short run, but at what cost to the stakeholders – our customers and staff?

It seems to me it is time for a change from the old method of headcount reduction, restructuring, and lowering prices, to an approach that establishes long term stability, acceleratesidentifying and making the right changes for your business, and results in improved profitability. The tools for this new direction exist in Business Process Improvement (BPI) methodologies. By stepping back to look at the whole business,not just one function or production area, and applying the disciplines of BPI, companies can learn how to do more with existing resources in several ways. By eliminating overlappingor redundant efforts that have crept in silently over time,resources are released from non-value-add tasks to be re-allocated to projects like new technology, or products andservices to meet new client requirements. End to end process evaluation also bridges company silos to assure issues are not just pushed from one area to another, and identifies where there are communication and information gaps or delays which canresult in extra efforts and cost to meet client deliveries.

When is the last time you did a detailed review of your process and workflow across the organization?

Hard numbers and real-life cases exist to show that even after significant labor and cost reductions have been made, a structured BPI approach can increase EBITDA, cash flows, and shareholder/stakeholder value.

Back in August, I published an article on the main WhatTheyThink site that highlighted my top five software trends to watch at Graph Expo. In general, this year’s show was an indication that solutions are just as (if not more) important as speeds and feeds, and software is top-of-mind for print businesses looking to succeed in the face of still-challenging times. Now that Graph Expo is over and I’ve had some time to reflect, I’d like to revisit the trends I outlined and see how they matched up with what was at the show.

1. Integration, Automation for Print and Beyond

As Cary Sherburne reported in her Graph Expo retrospective, production automation is a critical technology that will help drive efficiency and scalability in print businesses. Collaboration among different vendors to help their customers meet their goals is happening at a greater rate than in the past, as evidenced by many of the larger OEM vendors showcasing partner solutions and integrations at their booths. Hybrid Software, which specializes in providing software technology that integrates disparate information and production systems, had a consistently packed booth. Enfocus also generated a lot of interest with the new release of its Switch automation tool. Regarding the “beyond” part of this trend, the inaugural marketing pavilion that featured a variety of marketing-related solution vendors exhibiting also generated a significant amount of traffic despite its somewhat undesirable location toward the back of the show floor.

2. The Next Wave of Web Enablement

There were a number of developments and even some new entrants at Graph Expo related to the Web services space. As I mentioned in my original post, I was anticipating the launch of a new print eCommerce solution from Keen Systems. I was able to grab a pre-show briefing/demo, and the solution definitely has some potential; it also won a “Worth-a-look” award, which is great for a first-time exhibitor. Another company that has been around for a few years but just started exhibiting again was PrintNow, which offers three easy-to-understand software packages that service providers can leverage. Aleyant Systems, creators of the Pressero system, debuted their updated online interactive design tool, which was rebuilt on HTML5 instead of Adobe Flex/Flash for broader device support. EFI also previewed the latest version of its Digital StoreFront product, which included a revamped interface and ordering workflow. All in all, the future of Web enablement is shaping up quite nicely, and was on display at Graph Expo 2011.

3. Taking a Fresh Look at Print MIS

While production automation was one of the critical technologies outlined in Cary’s piece, MIS was the top critical technology, and there was plenty of activity related to MIS at Graph Expo this year. While EFI’s dominance in this space was certainly apparent, there were plenty of developments from other players. Heidelberg highlighted its Prinect Business Manager based on its CERM acquisition; the company plans to begin initial implementations of the solution in October or November. Technique received a great deal of attention at the show because of its new mobile application (iTechnique), which provides sales reps and managers with access to information such as customer profiles, active jobs, and the ability to submit new proposals. Avanti Systems highlighted its recent integration with Ultimate Impostrip, as well as its Customer Relationship Management capabilities. Finally, the very recent merger of vendors printLEADER and PrintPoint resulted in shared booth space and a showcase of how their products work together. With a renewed focus on operational optimization, MIS continues to be a key enabler, and printers are taking note.

4. Harnessing the Cloud

As I mentioned in my last post, utilizing the cloud results in easier implementations, reduction in software costs, and provides scalability as needs change. For print businesses to be more agile and make changes or shift directions as the market requires, flexibility and scalability are key factors. Many vendors were offering different flavors of cloud computing at Graph Expo. We already mentioned Keen, which is a true multi-tenant, cloud-based service. Many other vendors are taking the approach of leveraging virtualization, enabling customers to deploy software with less hardware footprint and greater efficiency. Kodak mentioned that it enabled virtualization with its Prinergy workflow suite earlier this year, and many customers have taken the opportunity to optimize their deployments.

5. Getting Serious About Mobile

While this trend was listed as number five on my list, I really think that mobile made a huge splash at Graph Expo and the issue of mobility will become a focal point for both vendors and service providers in the near future. I counted at least a dozen different mobile-related product announcements and features at Graph Expo, and I fully expect more to take shape between now and drupa. Some of these developments are around mobile marketing, including the ability to make print more interactive. Other developments are around the concept of mobile production management. My colleague, Barb Pellow, went into many of these announcements in further detail in one of her recent articles. It will be interesting to see how these applications are adopted by service providers and what benefits they provide.

Overall, Graph Expo was pretty great this year, and I think many of the software trends I highlighted were fairly prominent themes at the show. These are just my own views, though. What did you see at Graph Expo that really stood out to you? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

There has been a lot of reflection and praise all across the Web over the past week following the announcement on August 24 that Steve Jobs, Apple’s iconic CEO, resigned from his top spot at the company, likely due to his worsening health condition from a long bout with pancreatic cancer. Commentary has ranged from high praise to personal experiences with Jobs to some people saying “it’s just not that big of a deal.”

Much is being made of Jobs’ influence on Apple’s highly successful products: the original Macintosh computer, along with the seminal line of the iPod, iPhone, and iPad devices. Additionally, there is a lot of talk about Jobs’ influence on Apple’s advertising and marketing efforts, of which many memorable ads have come. One area that hasn’t gotten as much light shed on it during this time of reflection is Jobs’ influence on our own industry of graphic communications. Whatever your feeling about Steve Jobs and Apple, there is no denying that the Macintosh helped spur the desktop publishing revolution and catalyzed a transformation across the media production landscape, including print, video, and now interactive applications.

Much of this revolution can be pointed back directly to Steve Jobs’ influence on the first Macintosh PC and its successors. Jobs once noted during his graduation speech at Stanford University that when he dropped out of Reed College, he still snuck into a number of classes (even though he wasn’t enrolled), and one of those classes was calligraphy. He learned not only about calligraphy but of typography and what comprises good design aesthetic. Good design and typography were, therefore, major factors that influenced the design of software for the Macintosh, as well as the form factors that are prominent in today’s popular Apple products.

The first Macintosh PC had a variety of fonts to choose from, as well as pre-loaded software for word processing and layout. Soon after the Mac’s initial release, LaserWriter printers could be connected to the Mac, and third-party applications like Aldus PageMaker, Adobe Photoshop, and QuarkXPress were developed and initially touted Mac-only support. With creative software primarily available on the Mac platform throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s, Apple held a dominant presence in the graphic communications industries.

While Windows-based PCs have made inroads in these industries, especially from a pure business administration perspective, recent InfoTrends research indicates that the Mac platform is still holding strong throughout the graphic communications industries. Apple’s market share in terms of operating systems is comparatively larger in our industry than in other industries, and companies are generally very good about upgrading to the latest operating system releases. With Apple still on stable footing and creatives still attracted to Apple and Mac, it’s hard to fathom this will change anytime soon, even with Jobs’ sudden departure.

All told, Steve Jobs had a tremendous influence on the creation of the Macintosh, which in turn had a significant impact on the core creative processes and workflows we’re all now accustomed to today. You could say that he’s doing it all over again with the rise in popularity of mobile devices, with Apple at the center of that transformation. While it may be disconcerting to those thinking about from the perspective of the future of Apple, Jobs has created an innovative culture that is instilled through every aspect of the business, from product development through its retail stores. It’s definitely hard to imagine Apple without Jobs at the helm, especially considering the downward spiral it went into after he left the first time. This time, however, he has built up a strong team that he can confidently pass the torch to for at least another generation.

Consider the following desirable equation:
New projects ≤ Projects completed

 Do you find that for yourself and your organization the number of projects added is at a rate disproportionate to the number of projects completed? Why is that?

Organizations place a high value on project management skills, which are critical for successful project completion on time and on budget. There are numerous classes and certifications in project management and major software programs dedicated to providing discipline and consistency to the project management process. The importance of managing project resources and scheduling the project timing is well understood. Time and effort is devoted to identifying the tasks and understanding the inputs and outputs of each task for completing the project. The tasks are sequenced and dependencies and end points of each element of the project are identified.

So, why is it that so many projects fall short of their goals?

I submit that the main reason is that we don’t apply the same effort and discipline to compiling and managing the list of projects itself. A few companies have created Project Management Offices, but their scope is often limited to projects in one department or function such as IT. Every company and department has a project list that seems to continually grow. Is the list complete? Does it include projects or activities which are required to keep the business going, such as audits? Is there a way to track all of the efforts underway in our organizations and what resources are assigned? To manage the project activity going on in our organizations, we need a disciplined approach.

Projects should support the corporate or department Strategic and Business Plans. The objectives supporting these plans should represent “filters” that each proposed project should be evaluated against before it is started. Does the new proposed project help us meet a defined strategic or business objective? All too often a project is conceived and started without ever considering the overall impact it will have on other efforts underway. Once filters are applied and priorities are established, resource requirements can be addressed.

Understanding resource requirements and availability is critical before proceeding to launch projects. What staff or other resources are needed for a project? Simply adding projects to resources that already have full plates will guarantee that current projects as well as the new ones will experience delays. Projects with overburdened resources will suffer starts and stops while resources bounce from one hot project to another. This causes inefficiencies and increases the risk of errors in critical project steps.

Another part of the project management process that should be applied to managing the project queue is determining the sequence for project implementation. An assessment of the organization’s project list could reveal that completing one project first will make other projects simpler and easier to complete. Consideration should also be given to breaking major projects into smaller ones, allowing a quicker return on the efforts and creating a sense of accomplishment. With the reductions in the workforce over the last several years, a growing sense of frustration exists as to having too much to do and never accomplishing anything.

The overall process of managing the organization’s activities and projects is really simple:
• Apply filters to the list and set priorities
• Assure necessary resources are available and have adequate band width before starting
• Avoid the mega project that goes on and on from inception by breaking it into shorter term achievable efforts

The process to manage the project efforts for maximum efficiency and results is easy, but implementing it is hard and must be supported at the top. With many pressures in all companies today, management generally tends to continue to distribute new important projects, unknowingly creating unsupportable goals. Limited resources cannot complete an ever-increasing project list. The final challenge in controlling projects comes in creating a culture that allows the people involved in a project to push back and seek some relief when the number and complexity of their projects gets to the point that nothing is getting completed. Without that culture, neither the company nor the employee wins.

So, what kind of company or department is yours?
New projects ≤ Projects completed, or
New projects ≥ Projects completed

Check out webinars that could help you along the way!

When do two seemingly similar-sounding service offerings present completely different business models? When comparing Managed Print Services to Print Management Services. These sound the same, and in a certain situations can be used interchangeably, however the industry definitions are quite distinct and different.

Managed Print Services (aka; MPS), Managed Document Services, Enterprise Printing Services, or any other variation on this theme refers to the active management of fleets or groups of hardcopy output devices and by extension the digital output, capture and/or dissemination of data and/or images which are a by-product of such technology, all of which should be a strategic component of an organization’s (enterprise) document management strategy.

Of the many goals this service represents, that of cost-effectively controlling how, when and where organizationally necessary enterprise printing is accomplished rises to the top of the heap. This is closely followed by operational efficiency, productivity, storage, retrieval and security.

Depending on the model employed, this can either be a boon or a disaster waiting to happen for an organization with a widely distributed fleet of desktop laser or inkjet printers, faxes, scanners and small-to medium MFPs (or MFDs) where the task at hand is deemed unmanageable.

The premise of MPS is that through an initial discovery phase, an entity, either internal or external to the organization can root out every localized ineffective, underutilized or overutilized print culprit, assess their individual efficiencies or inefficiencies, and implement wholesale positive change in the way the organization manages how they print on an enterprise level. This is accomplished through mandates, decommission and installation of appropriate devices, actively monitoring usage, and in some cases, outsourcing or shifting higher-quantity work to devices or outsourced facilities utilizing appropriate cost and time-effective technology.

That’s the simple explanation and it sounds great in theory, however in practice the promise may not ring so true. Just about every OEM and/or their regional resellers offer one flavor or another of this kind of service. They all tout amazing savings with the ability for the organization to concentrate on their core business activities without having to worry about managing documents. Their profit motive should be seriously considered with a cost-benefit analysis. Quite frankly in some cases it makes sense.

For the organization that does not consider enterprise document management to be strategic to their core mission, the out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach MPS provides may seem perfect. After all, the provider of this service will always do what’s in the best interest of the organization, right?

This wholesale technology alignment/replacement strategy can even extend to in-house services where “copy” centers are present organizationally or departmentally. An adept MPS provider can be very convincing, again where enterprise document management is not considered mission-critical, with reasons why they should outsource this service.

Quite frankly, this may be true where an organization doesn’t have (or anecdotally doesn’t believe they have) the economy of scale to dedicate staff to research, identify, negotiate and implement the best solution for the best interests of the enterprise, or where little or no fiscal oversight or responsibility is required or deemed to be necessary for this segment of the organization’s business for whatever reason. What a perfect customer to have! On the other hand, a well managed operation will always know where their true, fully budgeted costs are for all facets of their hard-copy output needs, and this extends to knowing what is best printed when, and where.

Depending on the complexity of the enterprise this could be all encompassing enough to include micro-run desktop-applicable printing (both monochrome and color) where local office printers or MFPs are appropriate technologies, to medium-to-large production runs (also either monochrome and/or color) where CRDs (central reproduction departments aka copy centers) are more appropriate for given run lengths, to print runs which have no business being run locally and are outsourced by the individual department or the enterprise to either an in-plant possessing the appropriate technology or to an appropriate outsourced facility.

This is where Print Management Services (which for some reason I’ve never seen the complete acronym used for, so we’ll just call it PM Services) comes in to the picture. Now not only does the enterprise have the opportunity to “control” costs through either internal or external service providers for their enterprise document needs, but they can extend this process, again either internally or externally to encompass all printed material including digital printing, offset printing, wide format, apparel, specialty, novelty, etc.

PM Services, like MPS, can be implemented by an external service provider who purports to have the resources necessary to answer any need within a certain scope of work, or by an internal (in-plant) resource, without the organization necessarily having the ability to produce everything in-house while keeping the faith to serve the organization’s core mission.

In either case the PM Services provided for should be in the best interests of the organization. Not based on the service the provider has available. The question then comes down to how the enterprise decides what is best for their needs. It is only in rare cases that an outsource vendor can provide all of the services most medium-to-large enterprises require, so multiple service providers are the usual order of the day.

The best approach however is to integrate all the document needs of the organization under one roof, even if it means outsourcing some services while retaining others. True MPS on the one hand, which can include printer and MFP fleets, CRDs and print centers, and PM Services which can encompass high-speed digital, conventional sheet-fed and web offset, and all of the other print-mediums out there, in a perfect world should be centrally controlled from a cost-and-operational efficiency procurement standpoint with capable internal enterprise-level oversight and expertise in place.

It is only then that the organization, whether we’re talking about you specifically, or your customer, can effectively manage (or have you help manage with integrity and trust) what arguably should be considered a strategic, core, mission-critical business activity.

For operations executives and marketers alike, the number one challenge in today’s market is reaching the customer. Customers are clearly in control of the media that they consume. Mobile devices, iPods, DVRs, and the Internet have changed marketing forever. Marketing executives of the future will need to leverage every customer touch point with a mix of interconnected channels. One thing is certain — the effective use of cross-media communications will bring better business results. Delivering multiple impressions and giving prospects a variety of ways to respond can have a dramatic impact.

Media Dynamics are Changing

Over the past several years, we have heard about the importance of transforming into a “marketing service provider” with a focus on one-to-one communications and variable data. Today’s media dynamics are changing. As we look to the future, there will be three critical components for success in the much larger cross-media opportunity:

• Data-driven personal messaging
• Delivering messages across all channels
• Campaigns that engage the end customer

We’ll take a look at the first component now…

Data-Driven Personal Messaging

Marketers continue to see the value in developing intimate and direct communication with consumers. Not so long ago, families gathered around the television set. Now, individuals surf the Web and watch videos on personal, handheld devices. Consumers have grown comfortable with — and have even come to expect — a one-on-one dialogue with marketers. Personalized marketing messages are essential to attracting customers’ attention and delivering communications that increase sales. Today’s consumers don’t have the time or the patience to deal with irrelevant information. Data-driven personalized messaging has never been more important.

Organizations that sell products or services (business-to-business or business-to-consumer) must gather and use information about their customers’ purchases, including how much they spend per sale and when or how often they buy. Knowledge about past behaviors is a valuable tool for predicting future purchases. In addition to guiding business decisions, this information is critical for creating personalized marketing messages that increase sales.

Marketers must work with customers to personalize offers based on past purchases and preferences. The marketing must follow the customer (not the other way around), and the offer must be truly customized to the recipient’s specific needs.

In late 2010, InfoTrends published an extensive survey entitled Capturing the Cross-Media Direct Marketing Opportunity. The marketing respondents that participated in this study reported that over 60% of their campaigns leveraged personalized (one-to-one) or segmented (one-to-few) marketing.

From the perspective of the print service provider, personalization is the future of marketing communications. Service providers must clearly understand how to work with clients on data-driven campaigns. The problem is that personalization is not enough to remain competitive in today’s complex cross-media world.

If you want to learn about the remaining two components, visit www.OceWow.com and download the June 2011 Newsletter. You’ll find even more interesting articles there!

In a recent discussion with a number of folks at a client company, the point was raised that one of their main issues was that problem resolution by one function or department often resulted in a new issue arising in another department. In today’s environment, value is placed on taking responsibility for rapid resolution of problems, however, caution must be taken to assure that the root cause of the issue is resolved, and that the issue is not merely a “can kicked down the road”, just moving the pain from one function to another.

Every process, regardless of how simple, has at least three components, and likely three functions involved. There are inputs, work tasks and outputs. In reality, most processes are much more complex, with multiple steps, with the involvement at each progressive function increasing. To truly resolve problems as quickly as possible, it is critical that a cross functional group representing all of the stakeholders from inputs, work, and outputs be included. Successful problem resolution, through defining the root cause and eliminating it, must begin by defining the end to end process in which the issues have arisen. The input, the work itself, and the output handed off to the next process must be examined. In order to do this accurately, and to gain the greatest benefit from this effort, subject matter experts and owners of each functional area should be involved.

In many cases, the step where an issue has been identified is not where the cause is; it might be upstream in the process. For example, a quality issue identified in digital print might not originate in the printing function itself; it might be upstream in the composition function, or even further upstream in the specifications for purchasing the paper. Use of the cross functional team approach in problem solving will assure that the knowledge necessary to identify the root cause is included in the investigation and that communication of the issues to all impacted functions during analysis and implementation of the corrective action is accurate and complete. Without use of a cross functional approach to problem solving, it is easy to make assumptions based on an individual area without considering the impact on the prior step or next step in a process. While putting together a cross functional team might initially be perceived as slower, and certainly involves more effort and cooperation, ultimately it is the most accurate and efficient method to the permanent elimination of a problem. The scope of the team’s assignment and timeline should also be established up front to accelerate resolution. Whatever quality system approach is used to identify a problem: Six Sigma, ISO, etc., the problem resolution will be more successful by incorporating a cross functional approach to problem resolution.

We all know how important metrics are to successful business. The sayings, “What you don’t measure won’t get done”, and even, “If it didn’t get measured, it didn’t happen”, have become proverbs. Monthly reports of detailed financial statements and key performance indicators are common in large and small companies alike. For business people, this is our report card. It is the basis for “ranking” ourselves, both inside and outside our company. With all this emphasis on measurement and metrics, why do so many organizations seem unable to change and improve their businesses, or see issues coming?

Despite the emphasis on measurement and metrics, two things are often missing. The first is that most of the metrics that we track and report, and which get the scrutiny are in fact “results” measures. The revenue we generate is a result of the sales activity, and quality statistics are the results of the production process and activity. These all reflect what has already happened, and are not, in themselves, actionable. In order to make a change in the results, the focus must be on the drivers that lead to the results. “Driver” measurements provide a means of tracking those process and activity components that can be acted on to improve results. By measuring the driver activities, we can also begin to predict what will happen with the results metrics. Using the revenue example again, if you focus on quote activity and close rate and the way these measurements trend, you will be able to impact the revenue. To affect quality and delivery time, the attention should be on the first pass yield for each step of the process. Improvements in first pass yield improve quality, and reduce the overall time required to complete a job.

Secondly, there is often a tendency to look at individual metrics in isolation. Results measurements are easy to put into individual buckets to focus on. To really understand what is happening in the business or function and effect positive change we must look at the interactions between different activities, and the trends for the driver metrics. For example an increase in process cycle time would generally be a bad trend, however if that increased cycle time is combined with an increase of work volume or new work being developed, the increase in cycle time may be temporary, or if volume related, not be negative.

As more and more organizations are adopting dashboards as a useful tool in managing their business, including driver metrics, and integrating related functions on their dashboards will help to optimize results.

The importance of design in Business Communications has never been more critical. Research has shown that companies are sending more and more communications competing for consumers’ attention.  Businesses have only a few moments to get the audience’s attention.  In addition there are increased competing communication technologies and channels available to both the communicator and the audience.  These changes make the publication and distribution of business communications susceptible to errors and increased costs.  There are both direct production and indirect costs, such as increased customer service center calls, that are impacting the bottom line.

Our experience has proven that taking time to develop a communications plan and guidelines upfront can avoid issues which result in delayed or ineffective and costly communication. In the white paper by Robert Linsky, NEPS‘ Director of Information Design, (Improving Customer Experience with Document Design – A guide for Best Practices for Clear and Effective Communications), he  talks about taking a holistic approach to document design.  We suggest taking this one step further and taking the holistic approach to include production and distribution as well as document design. 

We suggest that the communications plan and requirements needs to be done by a cross functional team including the communication owner, the information designer and the production and distribution team.  This team needs to define the:

• Communication goal (primary and secondary if necessary)
• The timing from information availability to distribution
• Channels and media intended for distribution
• Resources and tools available for creation and production
• Document size
• Use of information design
• Approval and review process

Careful consideration of these elements can assure that the primary goal, for example, presenting a bill and getting paid quickly, does not get lost in a promotional effort to cross sell.  It can also lead to a strategy to manage page counts, thus using less paper and reducing materials costs.  At the same time, adding messaging to transactional documents based on space available without increasing sheets optimizes postage cost value.  

Testing is the second key point that needs to be stressed.  As communications become more complex and highly variable, and multiple channels are employed for distribution, testing is critical.  This is in many ways parallel to complex programming efforts.  You need to test, test, and test.  First, you need to test the specifications and requirements to make sure they are reasonable and meet the communication objectives.  Next you need to test the individual components of the communication: Is the message clear and presented in the order the reader wants it?

• Is the design right for the various channels and compatible with the attributes of each? 
• Does the communication work for printed documents as well as online presentation?
• Finally is the system working right?
• Do you allow readers to choose a media of their preference?
• Do you make sure that readers are not getting multiple copies of the same communication?

Failure to test can result in missed deadlines, costly duplication of efforts or, worst of all, the failure to communicate the primary message clearly and effectively.

The last element in our suggested guidelines is the implementation and use of an effective change control procedure.  Nothing can be more costly that having developed an effective communications program only to have it go off the rails because changes were implemented without the cross functional review and sign off, in line with the whole communication plan, goals, and requirements.  It is easy in repetitive transactional communications or multi faceted promotional programs over time to lose track of why certain elements were created the way they were.  Looking at all the process steps in the communication program will avoid costly miscommunication or missed deadlines.  When in doubt, test again before implementing changes.

As Robert Linsky states: “As a result, poorly designed documents evoke frustration—rather than understanding and action—on the part of the consumer. Poorly designed documents also result in numerous inefficiencies for the companies sending them, including increased call center inquiries, customer responses that are not in good order (NIGO), confusion in the workflow of employees processing the documents, and excessive paper and mailing costs.”

I believe that following three simple guidelines creates effective and efficient Business Communications

1. Plan and Document the Communications requirements
2. Test, test, test
3. Use a rigorous change management process

It’s no secret that proprietary technology powers the printing industry. Over the years, there have been several significant milestones that work toward “opening up” systems that power printing, such as the introduction and adoption of JDF & JMF, the standardization of PDF, and the growing presence of open interfaces to connect disparate systems together. Despite these developments, I bet there are still plenty of prepress operators (and managers) out there that become incensed when they try opening up a client’s InDesign CS5 file when they only have CS4 installed. There is a great (and somewhat ironic) story from the Social Science Resource Council about their experience publishing a report on software piracy and having to deal with multiple Adobe Creative Suite versions.

Despite these issues, it’s my view that the proprietary nature that many companies operate in have contributed to research, development, and advancement in the industry as a whole. Still, my belief is that there is a place in this industry for open, collaborative projects that can be accessed and contributed to by anyone that help move the industry forward. In 2007, while I was still at RIT, an initiative called the Open Publishing Lab, or OPL, was started in the university’s School of Print Media to address these issues. According to its Website, the OPL’s mission comprises three “E’s”:

• Extend existing publishing platforms
• Enable new publishing products and business models
• Empower individuals and communities to easily tell their stories as never before

All projects conducted and released by the Open Publishing Lab are “open source,” meaning that each project is released freely to the public, including the base source code, to help meet the OPL’s aforementioned goals.

I was not really involved with the OPL while I was at RIT, although I support its mission and principles, especially because one of its core functions is connecting print-focused students with IT-focused students to collaborate on systems-based projects. It has done some great work to date including Page2Pub, a tool that enables content aggregation from the Web into an EPUB eBook for reading and printing, along with Innovation News, a platform used for the rapid collection, preparation, and production of news stories for print and electronic output. The most recent effort by the OPL is Drop2Print, the details of which were released last week in a research monograph by RIT’s Printing Industry Center. From the monograph’s executive summary:

The challenge of connecting customers (end users) to print service providers that can best meet their needs is mirrored by the challenge that many smaller print service providers face in making potential customers aware of their services. Lack of a commonvocabulary and the communication of job requirements (customer) and servicesavailable (print service providers) further complicate the process.

…

The goal of this research project was to create a prototype and model for a simple, easy-to-use tool for end users to discover the specific print service providers that meet their requirements for production and fulfillment. The resulting prototype, Drop2Print, provides an easy-to-use desktop application that leverages the technical specifications of an end user’s PDF document to simplify the discovery of appropriate print service providers. This desktop application is linked to an online database that allows the Drop2Print application to determine the print service providers in a specific location that are able to meet the specifications of the print job.

In other words, Drop2Print is designed to be an easy, interactive way for potential print buyers to find print service providers that meet their specific printing needs. Drop2Print is just one example of distributed production print solutions that have been launched in recent years. We’ve seen similar types of models come into existence in the marketplace, such as HubCast and more recently, QuarkPromote. We’ve also seen large outsourcing management organizations like InnerWorkings leverage this type of model in the enterprise. What I like about the Drop2Print model is that it’s simple, it scales to organizations of all sizes, and it’s open.

Drop2Print still needs to be developed out further, and there is a high-level road map included in the research monograph of what’s in store. Regardless, it’s an important and well-done exercise in looking at the industry, defining a need, and working to develop a solution to meet that need. Best of all, it’s developed and documented in a completely open and transparent way, helping it serve as an educational tool for the industry that can be built upon by a broader community. I think the industry needs more of this type of open collaboration, and it’s great to see the OPL engaging in activities that work toward that goal.

While the needs of on demand book printers vary widely based on order size, overall volume and platform, arguably, high volume on demand book printing requires some of the most complex workflow automation of any printing environment. Even transaction printers and direct mailers could learn some interesting tricks from visiting a dedicated on demand book printing site. Even with relatively standardized book sizes, there are many variations in book sizes and types:

• Monochrome books with color covers
• Color books with color covers
• Different finished sizes for books with perfect binding, case binding, or saddle stitching

The books themselves may use one or more presses to create the book block and another type to create the cover. There are laminators, trimmers, multiple types of binders and camera devices to integrate between the trimmers and binders to verify quality throughout the process. At the end of the production line, regardless of printing type or finish size, the completed book order must come together for packing and shipping in the most efficient manner.

The goal of book printing workflow is to allow each order to navigate through the complete production, finishing and shipping process with the minimum amount of human intervention and the highest level of productivity and quality. In addition, there is a need for tight integration with MIS, web-to-print and JDF/JMF communications protocols.

Like many well-orchestrated processes, the true beauty in book printing workflow often is found in the front end planning. Like a chess master, the workflow solution needs to be able to look at the whole board (the book order) and see 15 moves ahead to know what sorting, grouping and batching is going to enable the highest productivity for that day’s orders. An effective solution will allow batch management of all jobs prior to the start of printing grouped efficiently by size, imposition, run length and color and finishing requirements.

Real time quality control and reporting is critical as well. Bar codes are used to identify and track each job from start to finish, matching book blocks with covers and enabling routing through finishing, fulfillment and delivery. If any part of a job is damaged or produced at lower than acceptable quality, the barcode can be scanned and a reprint of the necessary components or the complete book itself can be automatically generated. Meanwhile the order entry system is continually updated so that inventory levels, order status and even the end customer can be kept informed. When book printing workflow is fully tuned to the production environment, it delivers thorough and integrated job management resulting in significantly increased productivity and cost savings. In fact, many book printers compete mainly on the strength of their workflow management capabilities.

Consider too that all of this complex choreography may be conducted using devices from completely disparate manufacturers to produce orders coming from a myriad of sources. In some ways, book printing may seem simpler than the complexities faced with data-driven transaction print or personalized direct mail – but when it comes to workflow, they wrote the book.