Do Printers Believe in Continuous Improvement?

[Ritter]

On a more serious note, I find interesting that no thought enters your mind of passing some the savings to the workers that make the whole thing happen.

Good ol' business school thinking... scary how pervasive it can get into your brain. My thoughts as far as passing on to the employees belongs in another thread suffice to say that if the employees were embracing and leading the lean effort I would certainly share the benefit of the wealth.

 

[Mark H]

What is the percentage of waste at each step to stay lean?

Everyone eventually gets around to asking the same question. While there are some "industry" numbers out there, those are only samplings of what others experience given specific pieces of equipment, job specifications, and operators. The real question is - how much waste does each step in YOUR PROCESS produce?

Only you can answer that, and you should have the information at your fingertips.

• How much is lost in stocking related issues?
• How much in bad printing?
• How much in finishing? (and separate finishing into the different stages)

Track this for a while and see where your greatest loss is.

Mark H

 

[gordo]

While I agree that it is important to know ones own costs, wastage, etc. industry benchmarks certainly provide a context.
For example:
Knowing that plate spoilage in film workflow is 6% before press - 2% on press while plate spoilage in ctp workflow is 3% before press - 1% on press does help the printer evaluate their process more effectively.

One source for this type of info is "Managing by the Numbers" published by PIA/GATF.

best, gordo

 

[Mark H]

"Industry Benchmarks" give me a shudder. While they are certainly useful as a gauge, each shop needs to understand their customer's needs, work flow, equipment, and operator capabilities and then adjust "industry benchmarks" to the reality of the situation.

Just because the industry has a failure rate of x% with a given process or piece of equipment doesn't mean that you have to accept that as the best you can do (it's an average after all), nor do you have to consider yourself a failure if it's not obtainable - AS LONG AS - you understand WHY you can't obtain it.

Mark H

 

[gordo]

"Industry Benchmarks" give me a shudder. While they are certainly useful as a gauge, each shop needs to understand their customer's needs, work flow, equipment, and operator capabilities and then adjust "industry benchmarks" to the reality of the situation.

Just because the industry has a failure rate of x% with a given process or piece of equipment doesn't mean that you have to accept that as the best you can do (it's an average after all), nor do you have to consider yourself a failure if it's not obtainable - AS LONG AS - you understand WHY you can't obtain it.

Mark H

I'm not suggesting that an industry benchmark is the best one can do.
I'm saying that self-referencing targets (i.e. "The real question is - how much waste does each step in YOUR PROCESS produce?" stated in your original post) is IMHO insufficient. Industry benchmarks do provide a context and some guidance. It's the same notion that your doctor uses when taking your blood pressure readings. The doctor has a benchmark/target and measures your response in the context of typical values for your age/weight/sex demographic.

For example, if you have a plate spoilage of 12% before press and 6% on press, it is helpful to realize that that the industry averages for a mid-sized sheetfed shop are:

in film workflow: 6% before press and 2% on press

and in a ctp workflow: 3% before press and 1% on press

In themselves, the industry averages are not goals. They simply provide some guidance for interpreting an individual shop's performance. So, in this example, if I were a mid-sized shop, the fact that my performance was so different from the industry average indicates that there is likely something not just wrong, but seriously wrong with my process.

I would also expect anyone that is providing me with guidance as to how to improve my performance would be able to provide me with industry benchmarks appropriate to the type of shop I run, so that I could better understand any proposals for improving my current process.

best, gordon p

 

[Mark H]

In themselves, the industry averages are not goals. They simply provide some guidance for interpreting an individual shop's performance.

I think we're in agreement, and that I have (perhaps) not explained myself as well as I could. I have had the unfortunate experience to have seen too many shops (of all types from machine, to print, to automotive, to programming, etc...) chase their tales into bankruptcy trying to obtain an industry average which was unobtainable given their specific situation. I agree that knowing the industry average, as well as understanding what circumstances need to exist to support that, is an important part of improving an individual shop's performance and reducing its' waste.

Regards,

Mark H

 

[ondemandbindery]

An average is just that. An average.... As far as I have ever known, every print shop has their own good and bad in manufacturing. Someone may have some throughput rate on a press of 10k across the board but if they are having a bunch of rework that really did not get them anywhere. I am of the opinion that you can't trust a sales force from an equipment manufacturer for true numbers as they will most likely be exaggerated. I would like to think that any person is looking for continious improvement. But the reality is that this is not always the case. I know for myself I have had the opportunity to work in many shops and I have always learned something that outsmarted the shop down the road no matter how small. I like to call them trade secrets and trade debacles. There is a book called "the goal". This is a great one to read and it touches on this exact subject. I know for myself that in production I have always tried to figure out how to solve the bottleneck in the processing but this books really explains the ramifications of it. Those printers that do not pay attention to small things can truly be missing out on some great opportunities. And improvement does not mean an open ended checkbook. An example for us was a box sealer I recently purchased. I already had a 3M and it is a great machine but somewhat large and I knew there was a sealer out there that was more mobile and user friendly for setup and I just had to research it. An opportunity came up and we have a Little David now that gets a workout and though a small improvement it helps with throughput and is easier for people to use. Just a very tiny example of how simple gains really can be simple. And it only cost 100.00

 

[relicaexpo2]

In good times or bad times, the industry does not want to look at ideas unless they are products from some supplier or they look at the process in the ususal way, which does not lead to any fundamental understanding.

 

[Xlb]

Hum !! cans of ink for 19 roller systems and cans of ink for 21 roller systems I THINK WE GOT IT.

 

[Xlb]

Yes I think I have.

By the way, none of those variables above are related to the fundamental cause of ink/water balance. That is why you have not had total success getting it to be controlled.

Hum !! cans of ink for 19 roller systems and cans of ink for 21 roller systems I THINK WE GOT IT. Xlb

 

[danremaley]

I can tell you from being a consultant for GATF a number of years, that most printing companies have no budget for training. I was a process control consultant and found less than 5% of the printers have a process control system in place. Other issues are that they measure the wrong data at press (density instead of grey balance and dot gain).

 

[gordo]

I can tell you from being a consultant for GATF a number of years, that most printing companies have no budget for training.

Absolutely true.

I was a process control consultant and found less than 5% of the printers have a process control system in place.

Absolutely true.

Other issues are that they measure the wrong data at press (density instead of grey balance and dot gain).

Hmmmmm, no. Press operators measure density because that's the only real control they have. Measuring dot gain is useless and grey balance is problematic and for all practical purposes useless as a print production metric.

Best, gordo

 

[Green Printer]

Gordo you hit the nail on the head with density.

You can measure dot gain and gray balance all day the press operator must and will change density to achieve them. Running a job to a preset and tested density used in your shop should give you proper gray balance and correct dot gain. If you must stray from your normal density you have something physically wrong be it a consumable, press packing, operator error, ink water balance, wrong plate curve, plates exposure and what ever else can go wrong. Any time your density is out of range so is your process control.

 

[danremaley]

Absolutely true

Absolutely true.
Hmmmmm, no. Press operators measure density because that's the only real control they have. Measuring dot gain is useless and grey balance is problematic and for all practical purposes useless as a print production metric.
Best, gordo

Felix Brunner would take exception to your claims. He knows more about printing than you, me or anyone. . alive or dead! He controls color by measuring midtone dot gain and adjusting the density accordingly but the MEASUREMENT is gray balance. Don't be foolish follow the professionals!
Dan Remaley (external champion)
412.889.7643

 

[danremaley]

Simply not true. . .there's nothing WRONG. . dot gains change all day long and the relationship between Mag/Cyan gains change the gray balance and therefore color. The "secret" to color printing is keeping the dot gain relationship constant. I have a great printed reference that shows this example. go to System Brunner AG to learn more. I teach the pressman to measure the midtone gray with a densitometer, look at the 3-filter readings and adjust density until they're within .03 of each other - gray balance. I could teach you too! "google me".
Dan Remaley (external champion)
412.889.7643

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I teach the pressman to measure the midtone gray with a densitometer, look at the 3-filter readings and adjust density until they're within .03 of each other - gray balance.

412.889.7643

How do the three filter readings relate to density control? I am curious how you view this.

 

[danremaley]

Hi Erik, we would increase or decrease density of Y-M-C to create a perfect gray from 50C/40M/40Y (the patch we read). Of course this is after the plate curves were made under a stable condition. see System Brunner AG for more information.
Dan Remaley
412.889.7643

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Hi Erik, we would increase or decrease density of Y-M-C to create a perfect gray from 50C/40M/40Y (the patch we read). Of course this is after the plate curves were made under a stable condition. see System Brunner AG for more information.
Dan Remaley
412.889.7643

Dan, you didn't exactly answer the question as I intended. I will rephrase it a different way to be more specific.

Are you saying that in your example of the screened grey patch, that the measured Y density relates to the Y solid ink density and the same for the M density to the M solid ink density and the C density to the C solid ink density?

Is that how you understand it?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[gordo]

Felix Brunner would take exception to your claims. He knows more about printing than you, me or anyone. . alive or dead! He controls color by measuring midtone dot gain and adjusting the density accordingly but the MEASUREMENT is gray balance. Don't be foolish follow the professionals!

I've used System Brunner at various times since the early 80s. It had application then (in the 80s) based on the technology used for separation, plate imaging, and press function at that time. However, the system is not as applicable today. If you do an unbiased testing of its principles you will quickly see that they have very limited value in today's production process.
At the present moment I'm on a ferry, but as soon as I reach landfall and get to my home I'll post an example of how these notions of grey balance fail.
In the meanwhile you can read this explanation of the reasons why on my blog:
The Print Guide: Grey Balance Unbalanced – An inconvenient truth

Best, gordo

 

[danremaley]

Dan, you didn't exactly answer the question as I intended. I will rephrase it a different way to be more specific.

Are you saying that in your example of the screened grey patch, that the measured Y density relates to the Y solid ink density and the same for the M density to the M solid ink density and the C density to the C solid ink density?

Is that how you understand it?

Thanks for the clarification.

Let's see if I can explain- equal amounts of R-G-B equal gray, so the measurement of Cyan(-R filter) Magenta(-G filter) Yelo (-B filter) in equal density value, (i.e. Y.58 M.58 C.58) equals gray. Color is made from both the density and size of the dot, since the pressman can't easily change the size of the dot he increases (or decreases) the density. Without any measuring instrument a pressman "visually" creates gray balance by eliminating any "casts" by increasing or decreasing density, to a point, after which, only new plates, with different dots, will be needed.
I have a great reference piece that shows this relationship, send me an e-mail and I'll return a pdf file.
Dan Remaley
412.889.7643