Ray Chambers explores how the desire to control the supply chain to meet business objectives led companies to create in-plants.
Do you ever have those days where you just can’t get your head around what your priorities are, so you look for other things to do?
Two in-plants were doing all the right things, yet somehow administrators didn’t see their value. What could they have done differently
After a year of planning, the Association of College and University Printers conference is just over a week away.
Twenty years ago, HardCopy—the listserv for print professionals serving in the educational space—was born. Here’s the story.
Several years ago I was retained by a large public university to do an assessment of its printing de
In his new blog entry, Ray Chambers reveals why comparing prices with other in-plants may be of limited value.
Managed print services (MPS) have evolved as a major force in our part of the printing and document management space. They’re also a ma
Managed Print Services (MPS) is becoming mainstream. Ever since a large IT research organization published a "study" a few years ago in which it estimated that organizations spend 1 percent to 3 percent of total revenue on printing, an entire sub-industry has evolved to tap into this market. The researcher called it a "gold mine" but failed to address the fundamental issue: Is 1 percent to 3 percent too high, too low or just right?
As an in-plant manager, crafting proposals is nothing new. But a poorly conceived request sent to management could mean your print shop being denied that new press, facility or employee you may so sorely need. In a new article by consultant Ray Chambers, he details how knowing your numbers may mean the difference between a proposal being approved, or tossed in the trash.
As managers we have all been faced with situations where we needed to invoke change. Maybe we’ve had too few or too many employees. Maybe we needed to add a new piece of equipment or get rid of an old one. Maybe we needed a new facility. The common element in all of these change initiatives is that, most likely, we’ve had to convince someone at a higher level that action was needed.
If you ever set type by hand, if you’ve ever operated a Linotype or a Ludlow, if the terms “slug” or “chase” or “foundry” or “Hell Box” bring back thoughts of “back in the day,” you may relate to this story. No, this isn’t a story of nostalgia, and I won’t try to convince you how great things used to be. In fact, if you are familiar enough with a letterpress shop to remember the heat and the noise, I don’t have to tell you how much things have improved as we evolved into today’s digital print technologies.
A few years ago I did a presentation at a conference, which I called "Prepare to Defend Yourself." In it I explained that in my experience senior management probably does not understand the strategic contribution of an in-plant, so it's up to us to make the connection for them. The content was informed by more than 30 years of dealing with management and hundreds of projects involving in-plant performance.
A recent post on one of the print sites got my attention. The author, apparently an executive at a commercial shop—you know, the ones that say that we in-plants don’t get it—asked the question (and I’m paraphrasing here): how much business does a customer have to do with your firm to in order for you to take her/him on as a client.
It’s been several weeks since representatives of the in-plant community descended on Printing Industries of America (PIA) headquarters near Pittsburgh for an “In-plant/PIA Summit.” The summit was the brainchild of recently elected PIA board chairman Tim Burton and followed on the heels of unsuccessful merger talks between PIA and NAPL.