From the Editor: Two Views of In-plants
As this issue of the magazine was wrapping up, I learned that the National Association for Printing Leadership (NAPL) and Printing Industries of America (PIA) are discussing a merger. (Actually, "unification" was the word they used.) The two esteemed associations cited economic conditions, ongoing industry contraction and calls from membership as key motivating factors.
"The boards of each organization have passed resolutions supporting the process, and empowering the task force to take the steps to create a new single entity," read the press release. "Joe Truncale and Michael Makin, the CEOs of each organization have expressed their full support of these efforts."
So why should this matter to in-plants? Well, on the one hand, in-plants may want to observe that two of the country's largest printing associations have decided that merging may be the best way to survive in a contracting industry. Could there be a lesson here for the various in-plant associations still competing for members?
Then there's this aspect: One of these associations is friendlier to us than the other. IPG readers may have noticed that NAPL is mentioned frequently in this magazine (two stories in this issue, in fact); PIA...not so much.
NAPL's major awards program—the Management Plus Awards—has a category set aside for in-plants, and has bestowed top honors and praise on a number of our brethren over the years. (Portland General Electric's Print & Automated Mail Services team and Washington State Printing & Imaging each won Management Plus Awards this year.) NAPL also offers consulting services for in-plants, and Senior Consultant Howie Fenton has helped many in-plants improve their operational and financial performance and stay in business.
Then there's PIA. It is an excellent organization, working hard to strengthen the printing industry. Yet as a largely commercial printing-oriented association, it has taken action in support of outsourcing in-plants in the past. One government in-plant manager told me his operation was a PIA member for years—until PIA hired a lobbyist to testify before the senate in favor of private sector printers and against his in-plant (which, I'll say again, was a PIA member!).
A document on PIA's site (dated 2007) clearly states "Print outsourcing is desirable for the Federal and state governments, as it increases services while lowering costs. It is equally desirable for printers, because it moves existing volume to the private sector."
"PIA has not been a friend of public sector in-plants, especially those operated by public colleges and universities," adds consultant Ray Chambers, who has managed several in-plants in his career. "Many of us bear the scars of PIA's 'expert' testimony to various legislative bodies. I endured it in Texas several years ago, and I've been told that PIA-sponsored lobbyists continue to rail against public in-plants." (Read Ray's new blog for a more detailed analysis of this issue.)
Makin, PIA's CEO, unfortunately did not respond to my request for a comment by press time.
So while a unification of PIA and NAPL promises some positive outcomes, from our perspective, the best result would be if NAPL's positive take on the potential of in-plants becomes the predominant view of the joint organization. IPG
Bob has served as editor of In-plant Impressions since October of 1994. Prior to that he served for three years as managing editor of Printing Impressions, a commercial printing publication. Mr. Neubauer is very active in the U.S. in-plant industry. He attends all the major in-plant conferences and has visited more than 180 in-plant operations around the world. He has given presentations to numerous in-plant groups in the U.S., Canada and Australia, including the Association of College and University Printers and the In-plant Printing and Mailing Association. He also coordinates the annual In-Print contest, co-sponsored by IPMA and In-plant Impressions.
