Mention "waste" in printing, and what most people probably will think of first is a percentage of sheets discarded as the press comes up to color. That kind of "waste" is inherent in the process, and when held to a practical minimum, it's an acknowledged element of production. But "waste" has other, more disturbing aspects that can hobble productivity in any printing plant.
These issues of waste - eight of them, to be precise - are compellingly described in an essay by Ken Rizzo, director of the consulting resource group at PIA/GATF. Defining waste as any activity that fails to add value or yields a product that's unacceptable to the customer, Rizzo warns that a "hidden factory" of anti-production exists wherever steps aren't taken to eliminate waste in all of its insidious forms. Some of them, like excess time spent on inefficient makereadies, are obvious. Others are bottlenecks hiding in plain sight, such as skids of work in progress clogging large amounts of floor space because jobs are being over-produced.
Rizzo's critique is a needed reminder that despite all of the current emphasis on digital workflows and CIM (computer integrated manufacturing) for print, many of the greatest barriers to productivity continue to be simple physical constraints. A pallet of sheets in the wrong place can't be digitized, made JDF-compatible, and pushed through a digital pipe - somebody has to get on the forklift and take the stack someplace where it won't block traffic. And while digital workflows can and do reduce the waste that stems from faulty machine setups, they're of little use against "waste from unnecessary transport" and the other factory-floor inefficiencies that Rizzo brings to light. And there's no digital defense against something else that he correctly identifies as a species of waste: "not utilizing people's mental, creative, and teamwork abilities."
We'd like to see more expert commentary of this kind on the non-digital dimensions of improving print "workflow." Compliments to Rizzo for a persuasive exploration of the subject, and thanks to Printing Impressions for making it available at www.piworld.com/consult.
Discussion
By Dr Joe Webb on Feb 03, 2007
Back when Harold Littman was teaching me estimating at NYU (Harold got his doctorate in the program when he was in his mid-60s... quite an inspiration in that regard), he explained that waste is what you planned for and that spoilage was unplanned. Startup waste, for example, is part of the offset process, referring to how much paper, labor, etc. is needed before acceptable sheets come off the press. Spoilage could come from any variety of operator errors, such as not setting up the press correctly or ink problems on press, or almost anything. I wonder if the message of the article would be really understood as "waste" has a particular meaning in the estimation process that seems to be different than the way the author is using it. Whatever the case, because print has an estimation process that even adds in a factor for spoilage, few printers really realize the productivity and efficiencies they should.
By Randy Davidson on Feb 05, 2007
I thought this article was great. Print and publishing execs looking to improve profits sometimes put more emphasis on sales and marketing when in many cases it is easier to reduce "waste" to improve profits. And putting these things off as mentioned, only makes it worse later on...
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free