A Strategic Approach to In-plant Reporting Structures

The organization of in-plant print shops within universities is a strategic decision that can significantly impact service delivery, cost control, and alignment with broader institutional goals. This article explores a key debate in the industry: determining the optimal reporting structure for in-plant print shops.

The discussion is based on a recent exchange I had with the manager of our own Printing Services operation, Judy Peace, who attended the PRINTING United Expo and shared insights on industry best practices. While we agree on many aspects, we differ on one critical point: the reporting structure. Judy believes that print shops should report to any department except IT, while I argue that this decision should be more nuanced and based on strategic considerations.

Key Considerations for Aligning Print Shops in Universities:

When determining the best reporting structure for an in-plant print shop, several strategic questions need to be addressed:

• If the in-plant is responsible for managing the university's fleet of multi-function devices (MFDs), integration with IT can ensure consistency in service delivery and alignment with technology standards.
• Understanding where print procurement duties lie within the organization is crucial. A department that oversees both procurement and production can better manage vendor relationships and ensure cost-efficiency.
• Effective policies can determine whether the print shop operates as a strategic partner within the university or simply functions as a transactional vendor. These policies can guide internal processes, vendor selection, and standards for quality and service delivery.

The Case for IT Alignment

In a large organization like a university, business processes—printing included—should be managed at an enterprise level. Printing is as integral to operations as purchasing or HR, and fragmented management can drive up costs and inefficiencies.

Related story: Charting a Course Around Copier Lease Agreements

At the University of Regina, print services could be accessed through various means, including desktop printers, MFDs, the in-plant print shop, or external vendors. Aligning the print shop under IT helped us consolidate these services and optimize the print management process.

The tipping point came when a vacancy in the director of Ancillary Services role prompted a review of the entire Ancillary unit. A retired VP from another Canadian university conducted the review and saw the value in aligning print services with IT, rather than Ancillaries, based on similar experiences in the insurance sector. He presented his findings to our VP, who approved the restructuring.

When we moved the print shop under IT, IT was already supporting desktop printers, while the print shop managed analog copier fleets and small print jobs. However, users could bypass the print shop using purchase cards (p-cards) for external printing, leading to fragmented processes. By centralizing oversight within IT, we updated policies to position the print shop as the subject matter expert for print production and procurement, allowing for better control over internal and external print requests.

This approach led to the creation of a managed MFD fleet and the phase-out of desktop printers, yielding significant savings—$6 million over five years. Centralized print management allowed us to direct jobs to the most cost-effective channel, whether in-house or outsourced.

Challenges in Gaining Buy-In

Presenting this idea to senior management was initially met with skepticism. One VP dismissed it, emphasizing the potential backlash from faculty over seemingly minor changes, like restricting inkjet printers. A subsequent VP challenged me to prove the theory’s value, leading us to engage a consulting firm, Print Operations Group, for an analysis.

With the reorganization in place, I turned to change management techniques using the ADKAR model to gain buy-in across the university:

• Awareness: We communicated the rationale behind the change, focusing on inefficiencies and potential cost savings.
• Desire: Initially, administrative units were supportive, but the academic side viewed the change as a potential funding threat. Shifting our messaging to emphasize sustainability—like reduced paper and energy use—proved more effective.
• Knowledge and Ability: We trained stakeholders on the new processes, emphasizing how the changes aligned with their interests and the university’s strategic goals.
• Reinforcement: The Provost’s support was pivotal; he used data from our managed print services (MPS) provider to show potential savings, urging deans to adopt the new approach.

The Role of Policies in Supporting Strategic Alignment

The new policies aimed to centralize control of print services, ensuring consistency and cost-effectiveness:

• Print Production Policy: This policy established Printing Services as the central authority for internal and external print production, streamlining processes and maximizing large-volume purchasing.
• Printer Acquisition Policy: This policy emphasized the deployment of approved print equipment that aligned with the university's network and security standards, ensuring a standardized print environment.

Strategic Factors for Determining Reporting Structure

The decision on where a print shop should report is influenced by several factors:

• Strategic Alignment and Organizational Goals: The print shop’s alignment with departments like IT, Marketing, or Facilities should depend on which unit's objectives most closely match its role.
• Strategic Alliance vs. Customer/Vendor Relationship: It is essential to clarify whether the current reporting relationship is viewed as a strategic alliance that integrates print services into the broader organizational strategy, or as a customer/vendor relationship where the print shop operates as an independent service provider. The former can drive better alignment with institutional goals.
• Core Services and Primary Stakeholders: Understanding the primary users and scope of services can guide the reporting structure. If the print shop serves mostly academic needs, aligning with Academic Affairs may make sense. For general business printing, Facilities or IT might be more suitable.
• Operational Synergies: A print shop that relies heavily on technology and integration with digital platforms benefits from an IT reporting structure. However, if logistics and physical resources are critical, Facilities may be a better fit.
• Financial Management and Cost Control: Centralizing print services under a unit like IT can help track expenditures and optimize costs, as demonstrated by our savings.

Conclusion: The optimal reporting structure for an in-plant print shop in a university depends less on the specific department and more on aligning strategic objectives, operational needs, and cultural fit. Our experience showed that integrating print services into IT provided significant benefits, but this might not be universally applicable.

Universities must assess their unique needs and goals to determine the best structure. Ultimately, the focus should be on managing print as an enterprise process, ensuring efficiency and value across the organization.