Orlando Magic: An In-plant Victory Story
After outsourcing its printing, the University of Central Florida endured a nightmare of inefficiency and expense. Now the in-plant's back and customers are happy again.
October 2000 By W. Eric Martin
|
Back in 1993, the higher-ups at the University of Central Florida, in Orlando, looked at the books one day and were shocked to discover their in-plant was running a deficit of more than $100,000.
Even though they subsequently learned the print shop manager was pilfering funds—and driving up the negative numbers—upper management decided to bring in outside help.
"The print shop's account was so far in the hole that outsourcing was the only way they saw of bringing money back in," says Jodi Peters, the current Printing Services manager.
So the university brought in a facilities management (FM) provider. Unfortunately, it got more than it bargained for. What followed were years of poor service, dissatisfied customers, disinterested employees and financial trouble.
This sad chapter, though, came to an end two years ago when the university finally brought its in-plant back. And though the shop is still rebuilding, already customers are returning, profits are replacing deficits and praise is flowing.
"It's getting more positive all the time," remarks Ed Hindle Jr., print shop manager, "right up through our vice-president."
Money At The Root
No matter what excuses companies and organizations give when they decide to outsource printing, the reasons usually boil down to one thing: money.
Whether justifiably or not, they usually feel they're laying out too much money for in-house printing. They think they'll get a better deal outside.
But often they overreact. Instead of investigating to see whether the problem stems from poor management, they decide that the fundamental notion of having an in-plant is flawed. And all too often, years have to pass, with customers stewing in frustration, before they realize they made a bad decision.
At the University of Central Florida, problems developed gradually. When the decision was made to outsource, the Printing Services department, which encompasses both the in-plant and the copy division, worked up a request for proposal (RFP). Once bids came in, responsibility for the in-plant was awarded to Total Graphics, a local print provider that pledged to return 15 percent of its gross earnings to Printing Services. Total Graphics signed a three-year contract, with two one-year options the university could exercise.
To keep its new partner close to the action, the university had Total Graphics operate out of the old in-plant's space. Some in-plant employees chose to hire on with Total Graphics; others left or were transferred. In addition to bringing in equipment of its own, Total Graphics used and maintained some of the in-plant's original gear.
Even though they subsequently learned the print shop manager was pilfering funds—and driving up the negative numbers—upper management decided to bring in outside help.
"The print shop's account was so far in the hole that outsourcing was the only way they saw of bringing money back in," says Jodi Peters, the current Printing Services manager.
So the university brought in a facilities management (FM) provider. Unfortunately, it got more than it bargained for. What followed were years of poor service, dissatisfied customers, disinterested employees and financial trouble.
This sad chapter, though, came to an end two years ago when the university finally brought its in-plant back. And though the shop is still rebuilding, already customers are returning, profits are replacing deficits and praise is flowing.
"It's getting more positive all the time," remarks Ed Hindle Jr., print shop manager, "right up through our vice-president."
Money At The Root
No matter what excuses companies and organizations give when they decide to outsource printing, the reasons usually boil down to one thing: money.
Whether justifiably or not, they usually feel they're laying out too much money for in-house printing. They think they'll get a better deal outside.
But often they overreact. Instead of investigating to see whether the problem stems from poor management, they decide that the fundamental notion of having an in-plant is flawed. And all too often, years have to pass, with customers stewing in frustration, before they realize they made a bad decision.
At the University of Central Florida, problems developed gradually. When the decision was made to outsource, the Printing Services department, which encompasses both the in-plant and the copy division, worked up a request for proposal (RFP). Once bids came in, responsibility for the in-plant was awarded to Total Graphics, a local print provider that pledged to return 15 percent of its gross earnings to Printing Services. Total Graphics signed a three-year contract, with two one-year options the university could exercise.
To keep its new partner close to the action, the university had Total Graphics operate out of the old in-plant's space. Some in-plant employees chose to hire on with Total Graphics; others left or were transferred. In addition to bringing in equipment of its own, Total Graphics used and maintained some of the in-plant's original gear.
Companies Mentioned:
 |
|
|
