Recently, I had an interesting conversation with the top executive of growing, successful print service provider, and she made an interesting comment that I’d like readers’ comments on.
The company had recently implemented electronic document management. This executive, along with two other team members, went through the entire company employee by employee, creating a flow charge for all administrative processes, ferreting out inefficiencies, and using what they learned to dramatically increase productivity in the administrative workflow.
Employee-by-employee, they challenged every step. They asked, “Why are we doing it that way?”
The team found that the company had too many steps that had slowly become grandfathered in over time. Steps and processes added in to fix certain problems five years ago, ten years ago—or more—were no longer relevant. They analyzed everything—quoting, order entry, warehouse releases, billing, and graphics. Then they removed redundance, eliminated unnecessary steps, and streamlined everything.
Accounting: “This has saved me one hour a day, plus I’m able to take on a few other tasks that I couldn’t do before.”
Comptrolling: “It has saved me an hour day.”
CSR manager: “I’ll bet it saves me two hours a day.”
President / COO: “It took a one-hour process down to 10 minutes.”
But this new paperless workflow eliminated paper for administration, and there was sensitivity to the fact that the company — a champion of the value of print — would face criticism for eliminating paper / printed documents in its own workflow.
Ironic, isn’t it? Strong, healthy companies prosper, and better, more streamlined, more efficient administrative process contribute tangibly to the bottom line. So why should any PSP be concerned about being criticized for making a change that benefits the company’s overall profitability? I don’t think they should. Do you?