The legislature has convened for the current term in the State of Washington, and it looks like business as usual, at least for that state’s Department of Printing (PRT). A group of Republican and Democratic Senators, including Senator Rodney Tom, who sponsored a similar bill last year, has introduced Senate Bill 5523, which would eliminate the state printer.
The bill reads in part:
“NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 The legislature finds that technological changes have decreased the need for a central state printer. Information to citizens is increasingly being provided in electronic formats, which is both cost-effective and saves natural resources. Additionally, as printing technologies have changed, they have become within the reach of most agencies to conduct their own printing. The legislature also finds that printing is not a core state service and would be better handled within the private sector. Therefore, the legislature is eliminating the state printer.”
Let’s look at a couple of the provisions in this paragraph.
“...technological changes have decreased the need for a central state printer.” If anything, many of the technological changes have increased the need for a central state printer. Technology is expensive, both to acquire and operate, and maximizing efficiencies requires high levels of use. Does the state really want every agency to invest in high-end production equipment, even if they lack the volume to justify it or people with the necessary skills to run it?
“Information to citizens is increasingly being provided in electronic formats, which is both cost-effective and saves natural resources.” That sounds good, but aren’t we generalizing? Is everything printed by and for state agencies “information for citizens?” Or could it be that there are other uses for printed material, like gathering information, distributing policy information, or promoting state products (think apples)?
Many of the items printed at PRT are not suitable for electronic distribution. The bill seems to be lumping office copies, color promotional material, long run forms, letterhead, business cards and publications into one category. But printing, as we all know, consists of many different types and formats requiring different means of production. Some can be distributed electronically, but many cannot.
“Additionally, as printing technologies have changed, they have become within the reach of most agencies to conduct their own printing.” Are we not concerned with efficiency? Cost? Are we no longer concerned with confidentiality? Does appearance no longer matter? The central printer provides a broad range of behind-the-scenes services that improve the quality of printed pieces. These will be lost if the plant is closed.
“The legislature also finds that printing is not a core state service and would be better handled within the private sector.” There is some debate about this point. What defines a “core” service? Most “printing” is used by state employees to do their jobs. To issue licenses, distribute policies, and disseminate information. To promote programs, collect taxes and market state products. Further, communication with the public is a core function of government and printing is one of the most effective communication tools.
Yes, a lot of what we used to print has moved to electronic formats, but most indicators I’ve seen point to a continued role for "marks on paper" as a means of communicating and gathering information for the foreseeable future. And few, if any, communications experts would recommend reliance on a single media for an organization’s communications strategy. Print supplements electronic communications, and vice versa. We need both.
As for “better served by the private sector,” this is an urban myth. Why is the private sector “better?” Both use the same equipment and supplies, employ people with similar skills and print on the same papers. So what advantage is held by private sector printers that make them “better?”
I would argue that the state is better served by dedicated public employees whose mission is to maximize return to the state and provide fellow state employees with the tools they need to do their jobs, as opposed to private sector employees whose priorities are focused on maximizing profit. PRT enjoys a sales-per-employee ratio of $237,000 per employee, which is some 60 percent higher than the industry average of $145,000. So how, exactly, will the State be better served by relying on a less efficient alternative?
If anything, the market will be flooded with print jobs, and commercial printers will “cherry pick” the jobs they want and ignore the rest. If the market works as it should, prices for unattractive jobs will increase, and the state will pay more, not less, for printing.
The same Senator who last year described PRT as being “...as dated as stenographer pools” is a sponsor of this bill. According to the February 20, 2010 edition of The Olympian, the senator said “he wants to abolish the 100-worker shop because agencies can use desktop printers for small materials and private companies if they need brochures or reports printed.” He added that state government is “stuck in a steno pool age.”
That’s right! That’s what he said.
You have to wonder where this guy gets his information. At a time where most printer and copier vendors are telling organizations they have too many printers and that they can dramatically cut printing costs by reducing the number of desktop and workgroup printers and routing printing to more efficient production printers, like those found in PRT, some members of the Washington Legislature are arguing exactly the opposite. These legislators want state employees to use more expensive desktop printers. The copier and laser printer vendors in the State of Washington must be ecstatic over this bill.
The reality is this: shutting down PRT will not reduce print costs. If anything, decentralizing responsibility for print procurement will enable those with little or no training in print buying to manage agency print spending—and overall printing costs for the state are likely to soar.
I research outsourcing in my doctoral studies, and I have yet to find a study that meets academic research standards—that is, a study not performed by a vendor or special interest group—to support the notion that outsourcing printing, or other support services for that matter, actually reduces costs. In fact, there is a great deal of research that supports just the opposite view. Many outsourcing initiatives in both the public and private sectors are unsuccessful, meaning they do not reduce costs or improve services. And there is a growing trend away from outsourcing. Public and private organizations are cancelling privatization contracts and returning to internal production.
Finally, one has to wonder why the authors of this bill can’t wait for the results of the State Auditor’s Office review of PRT, which I’ll discuss in my next blog.
If the Washington State Legislature is serious about reducing printing costs, here’s a three-tier approach:
1. Reduce appropriations for print expenditures at the agency budget level.
2. Limit the production capacity of every laser printer, office copier and multi-function device in every state agency to no more than 20 to 25 copies per minute.
3. Require all agencies to use the Washington State Department of Printing for any print order larger that 50 or so copies per original.
At a time when other states are eliminating small, decentralized print facilities and moving toward larger, more efficient shops, the State of Washington is going in the opposite direction. The citizens of Washington are not being well served.
- Categories:
- Business Management - In-plant Justification
Ray Chambers, CGCM, MBA, has invested over 30 years managing and directing printing plants, copy centers, mail centers and award-winning document management facilities in higher education and government.
Most recently, Chambers served as vice president and chief information officer at Juniata College. Chambers is currently a doctoral candidate studying Higher Education Administration at the Pennsylvania State University (PSU). His research interests include outsourcing in higher education and its impact on support services in higher education and managing support services. He also consults (Chambers Management Group) with leaders in both the public and private sectors to help them understand and improve in-plant printing and document services operations.