Prepress / Pressroom reader

[[email protected]]

Very often the following Press House QC procedures are employed

1. Prepress creates either digital or paper proof of imposed press form.
2. Prepress proofreads proof and signs with OK signature.
3. Proof along with line-up is supplied to Pressroom which uses both for comparison to printed press signature.
4. 1st Pressman and Pressroom Supervisor sign off on printed signature.
5. Shortly after press form start-up the signed signature and form proof is returned to Prepress where it is once again read and OKed by Prepress Supervisor confirming that the printed signature is correct.
6. Proof and signed signature is returned to Pressroom and re-combined with form documentation.

There is discussion stating that with 'Lean' procedures in place this 'round-robin' approach to product QC should not be required. I can not help but think that a continuation of several pairs of eyes and signed press signatures go a long ways in delivering a good product, even if it requires a bit of redundancy. I would appreciate a consensus of opinion.

 

[David Dodd]

Tony,

Welcome to the forum! Proofing is one type of "inspection" activity, and lean practitioners view most inspection activities as non-value-adding. However, not all NVA activities can or should be eliminated. NVA activities come in two flavors - those that are not necessary and can be eliminated with no negative impact, and those that are essential for some reason. Some inspection activities are unavoidable given the capabilities of existing business processes. In the proofing context, this means that if your prepress processes are not capable of producing error-free output on a consistent basis, then some level of proofing is essential. The question is: How much proofing is really essential?

To help you answer this question, I suggest that you define the specific errors or defects that each stage of your proofing process is designed to detect AND the specific tasks that are performed at each stage of the process. If you find that you have multiple people performing the same tasks looking for the same defects, then your process may be overly redundant. Redundancy does provide some additional level of comfort, but that comfort usually comes at a high cost. With non-value-added activities, the immediate objective should be to do what is really essential, and no more.

Lean organizations are always trying to eliminate unnecessary non-value-adding activities. For necessary or unavoidable NVA activities, the first step is to reduce or eliminate the NEED for the activity. The activity is eliminated only after the need no longer exists.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

The question is what would it cost not to have it

The question is what would it cost not to have it

It is quite easy to see if a QC is worth his pay. If you logg (maybe for typical periods) what mistakes are found and the cost had they not been found.
The dilema is that all people in the chain are slimming costs and it means more mistakes from upstream.
5 minutes to proof a job by an experienced (film)stripper will save hours of waste and standstills. If a 30 min edit will save hours of postpress then it too is worthwhile.
The biggest trouble with lean (IMO) is to maintain the wholistic or overview.

 

[David Dodd]

It is quite easy to see if a QC is worth his pay. If you logg (maybe for typical periods) what mistakes are found and the cost had they not been found.
The dilema is that all people in the chain are slimming costs and it means more mistakes from upstream.
5 minutes to proof a job by an experienced (film)stripper will save hours of waste and standstills. If a 30 min edit will save hours of postpress then it too is worthwhile.
The biggest trouble with lean (IMO) is to maintain the wholistic or overview.

Lukas,

Thank you for your contribution to the forum. I believe we would all agree that delivering error-free jobs is critical to business success. The real issue is how to do that in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible. For example, suppose that your company uses business processes (proofing and otherwise) that will enable you to avoid or detect 99% of all errors. Now suppose that I devise and implement business processes (proofing and otherwise) at my company that are capable of achieving the same results (99% error avoidance or detection) but at half the costs of yours. If all else is equal, which company will be more profitable, yours or mine?

I would disagree with your contention that lean does not take a holistic view of business. In fact, lean is always focused on improving the performance of the overall business system, at least when its used in the right way.