In-plants: The Next Generation

THE IN-PLANT has evolved to become a knowledge disseminator—a unit within an organization that provides value by enhancing the process in which knowledge is communicated. This fact, however, remains unbeknownst to the very hierarchy that drives the organization because in-plants find it difficult to communicate with executive level management.

Similarly, the role of the in-plant has been shifting. In the past, its primary concern was placing marks on paper. Now, however, it archives and manages files and provides file access for reprint needs. Where in-plants are generally lacking is in their ability to tag, archive, manage and make accessible all files, images, data and content that they handle.

As knowledge management initiatives begin to take place in prominent institutions around the world, the in-plant should assume a more prominent role in the archival, categorization and dissemination of knowledge. The problem is, most in-plants aren’t even aware of the knowledge management movement and the growth opportunities it promises.

Our study resulted in the following findings:

1 The in-plant print community,
as a whole, is in deficit with respect to understanding knowledge management (KM), content management (CM) and electronic document management (DM).

Having a clear understanding of these three concepts is a future imperative for the success of the in-plant. Yet a survey of more than 80 in-plants revealed that 49.2 percent had never heard of KM. This is a huge deterrent in the movement to bring in-plants to the forefront of knowledge management initiatives.

For the purposes of this article, we will define KM as “creating competitive advantage from the intellectual assets available to your organization.” DM refers directly to the generation, archival, retrieval, dissemination and termination of documents as they initially exist. CM, in contrast to DM, looks at the content as objects or metadata and tags, and classifies this content for easy electronic searching.

DM and CM are merely tools that assist systemically in the possible capture, archival, organization, classification and dissemination of knowledge in the form of information and data.

2 Without a clear understanding of KM,
the in-plant does not have a primary or definitive role in its parent organization’s KM initiative.

Organizations continue to investigate ways in which to eliminate costs associated with print. As a result, there has been a movement to develop integrated processes that streamline the capture, storage and dissemination of corporate knowledge initially existing in the form of documents. However, the in-plant has had very little involvement (if any) in the planning and/or implementation of its parent organization’s enterprise KM initiative.

More than 78 percent of the in-plants surveyed do not have a role of any kind in a KM initiative within their parent organization. Just 21 percent say they have some role.

Whereas the in-plant is ill-informed of the necessities of managing knowledge and all of the components associated with an organization’s knowledge domain, so too is the design team that chooses to exclude the in-plant from the implementation plan. Many executives fail to see the sheer importance of the in-plant as an electronic document generating hub.

A KM initiative is nothing without a precise understanding of how knowledge is captured, archived and disseminated. The in-plant is an ideal hub for assessing this information for it is where documents are printed and output is generated. Therefore it is imperative that the in-plant become educated in KM practices and principles and assume a substantive role in the progression of an effective KM initiative.

Once such a strategy is defined, the in-plant will strengthen its ties within the organization and emerge as a value-added contributive component to the future progression of the organization.

3 IT is a prominent partner
in the in-plant supply chain, but not closely aligned.

IT divisions are usually primary players in the development and implementation of an organizational enterprise-wide KM initiative. Because of natural dichotomous relationships formed between IT and the print center, the print center is often viewed as a non-IT function casting a secondary importance level on the value that it adds to the organization as a whole. As a result, the in-plant is most often excluded from the developmental phases associated with any sort of KM initiative.

IT has evolved to become the favorite child of the parent organization; the services it provides are perceived to be instrumental to the continuance and existence of the entire organization. This is not the case with the in-plant.

A proximal alignment with an organizational IT division would be a significant political boost for the in-plant and would assure that in the emergence of a KM initiative, the in-plant would assume a role in the future plans and possible design of the program. In-plants [must] develop cohesive and collaborative bonds with IT services, data centers and records management personnel in order to politically align the in-plant with the core mission of the parent organization and emerge as a value-added component of the operation.

The products produced from the in-plant all contain content, which, when applied in context, becomes knowledge. This knowledge—existing in some form of electronic media—can be archived, tagged, classified, disseminated and made accessible to chosen personnel via an electronic agent such as a Web portal. This is a KM function that requires great attention. If the in-plant fails to take this on or partner with IT, then it will be left behind.

The visions set forth by IT and the in-plant are not closely aligned. IT looks for ways to maximize technology for the sake of distributing information. In-plants look for ways to make marks on paper. For in-plants to survive, they must look beyond the substrate and seek new and innovative ways in which to store, track, tag and archive files—for a start. IT has expertise in this area and can provide the needed assistance to launch successful applications in multiple phases of progress.

4 Some in-plants see value
in strategically and collaboratively partnering with intra-organizational departments in the area of KM, CM and DM, but do not believe that they should emerge as the primary leader of such initiatives.

Many in-plants, faced with reduced print volumes, tight budget constraints and mandates to reduce costs through production efficiency, have a desire to differentiate their service offering. They generally lack understanding, personnel and inter-corporate leverage, however, and do not emerge as a prominent leader in an organizational KM initiative.

Still, it’s important for the in-plant to be part of this team and assist in the design and implementation of the KM initiative. For the in-plant to emerge as the primary leader is perhaps unrealistic. However, for it to emerge as an energized division that champions a KM movement within a progressive organization is momentous and politically engaging.

5 Only a small minority of
in-plants have installed or are researching an enterprise-wide electronic DM system to be used by their parent organization.

As documents continue to be authored, tagged, archived and disseminated electronically, it is significant for an in-plant to emerge as a document archival repository, thus placing lesser importance on the output and greater importance on file storage and content management.

Although 75.4 percent of the in-plants surveyed reported they receive files electronically or offer an electronic file submission service, only 19.7 percent provide an online search and retrieval service for archived images or documents that have passed through the print center. Additionally, 68.9 percent offer networked printing services but only 8.2 percent provide digital asset management services in the form of database collections.

There are many case studies of organizations that have successfully begun a knowledge management movement simply by starting with an electronic document management system. As a result, they witnessed significant decreases in processing times where they have automated manual centers, provided easy simultaneous accessibility to electronic documents, eliminated long searches associated with paper file retrieval, reduced human error and generated significant cost savings.

Conclusions and Implications

The digital revolution has inundated organizations with a phenomenal wealth of knowledge that has sparked a new outlook on the way documents—the carriers of knowledge—are produced and ultimately disseminated. This study brings awareness to the very real and complex issues currently challenging in-plants around the world and most importantly (with some irony) it exposes a gaping hole in the leadership of educational institutions and their inability to congeal collaborative progression in the area of managing knowledge.

The findings from this study highlight an increased need for education and advocacy in the in-plant sector for the involvement and, possibly, championing of knowledge/information driven initiatives within their very own organizations. IPG

This article was condensed from the original 32-page report by Bob Neubauer.

Ken Macro, assistant professor in the California Polytechnic State University Graphic Communication department, in San Luis Obispo, Calif., executed the research for this report along with a team of students. Entitled “Codifying, Managing, Archiving, and Disseminating Intellectual Assets: The Next Generation of the In-Plant Print Center,” the report was made possible through a research grant provided to Cal Poly by The Electronic Document Systems Foundation (EDSF), a non-profit organization dedicated to the document management and communications marketplace. The report—which provides examples of successful in-plants that have taken a stance to champion the management of knowledge within their organizations—is available as a free download at

www.edsf.org/white_papers.cfm