Presentation on theme: "Managed Print Program Launch: Reducing Costs and Enhancing Penn’s Sustainability Posture Data Sources: BEN Financials; IDC; Gartner; Papercalculator.org;"— Presentation transcript:
Managed Print Program Launch: Reducing Costs and Enhancing Penn’s Sustainability Posture Data Sources: BEN Financials; IDC; Gartner; Papercalculator.org; Purchase and usage reports from respectively named suppliers. Data cross-validated, where applicable. Data Sources: BEN Financials; IDC; Gartner; Papercalculator.org; Purchase and usage reports from respectively named suppliers. Data cross-validated, where applicable. -Printing at Penn: Current State -Managed Print Services (MPS), defined -Fleet Dashboard Tool & MPS Portal -Strategy Summary -Evaluation Process -MPS Business Case: -School of Veterinary Medicine -School of Dental Medicine Brent Friedman Sourcing Manager Purchasing Services | Business Services Division www.purchasing.upenn.edu July, 2013 http://www.purchasing.upenn.edu/MPS/
What do you know that you know? FACT: In most establishments, the true cost of office printing is unknown.
Known Annual Cash Outlays for Print Support $7,200,000
The True Costs? FACT: In an unmanaged print environment, the true costs of office printing are typically 2-3X the known costs. FACT: In an unmanaged print environment, the true costs of office printing are typically 2-3X the known costs.
What do you know about printing costs? Cost Component, Typical EmployeeMonthYear Printer ($250, basic B&W laser)$5$60 Paper ($4/ream)$4$48 Toner ($110)$13$156 Energy ($3)$3$36 $25$300 Known costs, new printer with a 4-year lifespan Cost ComponentMonthYear Printer ($250, basic B&W laser)$5$60 Paper ($4/ream)$4$48 Toner ($110)$13$156 Energy ($3)$3$36 Break/fix service, parts & maintenance$10$120 IT Support$10$120 Incorrect, unused, or abandoned print jobs$8$96 Toner held in inventory$2$24 Real estate costs$2$24 Staff time, ordering & maintaining supplies$5$60 Disposal costs$1$12 $68$816 Real costs, new printer with a 4-year lifespan We know this example cost model to be directionally true, based on 20+ years of Managed Print Services industry benchmarks. 4 Year Total Cost of Ownership: $1,200 4 Year Total Cost of Ownership: $3,204
Unknown Annual Costs Carried ink and toner inventory; waste, end-of-life, Ben’s Attic Staff time spent ordering and managing supplies Internal time and cost for LSP support E-waste disposal Waste due to incorrect and abandoned print jobs Over-specified print devices No standardization of print fleet Environmental
974’ Penn’s Annual Paper Consumption Penn consumes a stack of paper equal to……?
Annual Office Paper Consumption 3.5Miles 60,000,000 sheets 12,000 cases 285 tons Less than half is recycled-sheet
Penn consumes enough paper to displace 25% of Central Park…. Central Park, New York City A Managed Print solution drives sustainable printing behaviors that reduce paper consumption.
6,500 trees 6,000,000 gallons of water in manufacturing 148 cars’ worth of annual CO 2 production Environmental Impact of Penn’s Paper Consumption
>25,000 cartridges #1 category of spend with Office Depot (>$1.4M) 266 cartridge types Less than half are recycled/compatible brand >5 tons of e-waste Annual Printer Purchases & Ink/Toner Consumption >1,000 new devices #1 category of non-computer hardware spend (>$350K) 8 OEM brands, 144 models No device standardization No significant rationalization efforts >10 tons of electronics Net add, several hundred printers per year
Additional Data Points 90+ instances of MPS on campus; wildly variable rate structures B&W: $0.004 - $0.25 COLOR: $0.04 - $0.14 Ratio of ~1.25-1.75 local printers for every networked print device Ratio of ~1.50 print devices per employee 2,000+ staff hours to manage supplier contracts and order/maintain consumables $1,400,000+ spent annually on ink & toner $400,000 savings if Penn used compatible and remanufactured toner cartridges $2,000,000+ in carried ink & toner inventory on campus Costs $ thousands per year in lost opportunity costs and cash flow restrictions Average institutional cost per page: $0.15 - $0.25 (conservative)
What is Managed Print Services? MPS typically includes: multi-function printers (MFP’s), copiers, scanners and fax machines ink/toner supplies preventive maintenance parts and break/fix service equipment up-scaling and down-scaling flexibility guaranteed service level response times single contract for increased buying process efficiency and buying power usage reporting and analytics Managed Print Services (MPS) is a service that analyzes and manages document input/output devices to: improve efficiency and productivity reduce electronic, paper, and plastic (ink/toner) waste reduce the total cost of office printing reduce support burden to IT staff manage the printer fleet with greater visibility and control Managed print ≠ networked printers.
MPS: How does it work? Print Assessment Optimized Print Environment A print assessment process typically includes: 1.Physical walk-through of print environment; floor plan mapping of devices 2.Data Collection via software tools (“DCA” – Data Collection Agent) 3.Business process evaluation and key end-user interviews 4.Optimization recommendation to client, tailored to precise client requirements Unmanaged Print Environment Networked Print Environment RIGHT-SIZED BEST PRACTICE FINANCIALLY SMARTER SUSTAINABILITY-FOCUSED Optimized Managed Print Environment Large Workgroup Printer Local Standalone Printer
MPS Program Benefits Waste reduced Increased service levels Better sustainability posture Free-up staff time Reduce costs High toner usage on documents can be costly, especially color (or same-day, if required) Costs unaffected by high toner usage
12 Ways Managed Print Services Can Reduce Costs Implementation of a robust MPS environment typically reduces print costs by 25-40%. 1.Optimization of the print fleet: right size & location for the volumes generated 2.Implementation of duplex printing 3.Reduction of printed pages 4.Optimization consumables/toner usage 5.On-demand consumables supplies – no need to keep inventory 6.Proactive support and maintenance 7.Consolidation of parts and service expertise requirements 8.Fewer devices, fewer device types 9.Increased product reliability 10.Energy efficient print devices 11.Consolidation of supplier relationships 12.Enhanced leverage through campus-wide print volume
Strategy Summary & Proposal for Improvement TARGET: Develop a highly flexible, scalable managed print framework that can be leveraged by anyone at Penn Set the standard for office printing across campus. PROPOSAL: Constitute a cross-functional core team than can: identify school/center/department/building(s) with a desire to implement a Managed Print program assess the marketplace (including incumbents) for capabilities execute a formalized RFP, selecting a preferred supplier partner through a weighted scorecard approach implement, measure improvements, broadly communicate success, and enroll more participants BENEFIT: Best pricing/value on campus Enhance Penn’s campus sustainability posture Impact local job market & economic inclusion efforts Implement best-in-class business practices for office printing Free up staff time currently spent managing/supporting print devices, supplies, and supplier relationships Reduce cost, on-campus supplies inventory, direct & indirect waste, while improving Penn’s overall cash flow SITUATION: >20,000 print devices on campus; net add several hundred year-on-year. Penn acquiring over 1,000 new print devices per year; net add “hundreds” annually 3 suppliers providing some form of Managed Print Services; inconsistent fees charged Inconsistent buying practices for supplies; inconsistent pricing schemes among suppliers Penn pays up to 10x more for office printing than what it could cost Current practices are financially unsustainable, notwithstanding the environmental impact >$7.2M (that we know )
The Approach to Building a Strategic MPS Framework 1. Identify business areas seeking an MPS solution; validate interest 2. Inform incumbent suppliers of intent to go to market 3. Gather internal requirements and volumes 4. Draft a formalized Request for Proposal (RFP) Document 5. Finalize internal sponsorship, alignment, and requirements 6. Send RFP to market (proposals received October 12) 7. Evaluate proposals, short-list suppliers 8. Conduct parallel, competitive print environment assessments with short-list 9. Evaluate finalists’ print optimization recommendations 10. Award contract; define the overall MPS framework 11. MPS Program Launch 12. Continuous Improvement, Ongoing Evaluation
MonthMilestone January, 2012Observations February, 2012Opportunity Confirmed; Internal business areas identified for project March, 2012Suppliers Informed of Intent April, 2012 Fact finding, data gathering, marketplace conditioning May, 2012 June, 2012SDM Confirmed - ~250 printers July, 2012SVM Confirmed - ~330 printers August, 2012ASC + 3 standalone Departments Confirmed - ~400 printers September, 2012RFP Sent to Market; Project Status to IT Roundtable October, 2012RFP Due, preliminary evaluation November, 2012RFP evaluation, continued December, 2012RFP evaluation complete; short-list discussion January, 2013Short-List Presentations February, 2013Pilot Assessment Kickoff March, 2013Pilot Assessment Period April, 2013Pilot Assessment Period May, 2013Pilot Assessment Complete by May 31. June, 2013Final Evaluation Team meeting. Award Decision, strategic MPS preferred supplier announced July, 2013Implementation, Initial Savings/Benefit Forecast August, 2013Implementation September, 2013Implementation October, 2013Major Project Update; Achievements Reviewed, Savings/Benefit Re-forecast Overall Project Timeline
Volume leverage: Best-in-class service levels and overall value for business areas that opt-in Unified reporting of print data against established measures Access to printing subject matter expertise and superior print technologies Highly attractive MPS account in a very competitive market Minimally effective implementation provides significant and irrefutable cost savings and environmental benefits SUMMARY: Why do this, and why now? A robust, flexible MPS strategy: –complements Penn’s Climate Action Plan –further supports the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment –saves money, drives sustainable behaviors, and is a best-practice –is increasingly in demand across Penn’s campus It is the right thing to do.
Scoring Methodology for RFP Responses Method Employed: Since all suppliers fundamentally meet the basic requirements for MPS, we will score each RFP question response relative to the competition. RFP sections will be prioritized and weighted. Scoring Key: 5 – “Best answer, most desired response” 4 – “fourth best” 3 – “third best” 2 – “second best” 1 – “Least desired response” 0 – Unable to Score; Not Applicable; Completely Fails Penn Requirement Evaluator Comments: All evaluators are encouraged to use the ‘Comments’ section with each RFP question to help support future evaluation team discussions. Special Circumstances: If you do not possess adequate expertise or information to make an informed ranking on a particular RFP question, input “0” for all responses on that question. This will force a “wash” on that question and not affect the overall ranking in your individual scorecard. Purchasing will account for this in the overall tabulations.
Commercial & Financial Risk Evaluation Commercial analysis focuses on: –ability to meet Penn’s diverse customer and delivery requirements –collection of incumbent supplier performance feedback –financial solvency to continuously grow the company and adequately fund operations –known and potential litigation risks –ability of Penn to influence the product offering and marketplace –(typically) understanding Penn’s negotiation position; ability to achieve a high value cost structure –(typically) contract legal terms and conditions When reviewing a company’s financials, we analyze: –overall financial solvency of the firm –ability to support continued operations for anticipated contract term –ability to support current indebtedness and simultaneously continue internal investment for growth –financial assets to support upswing/downswing in business during term
Other Considerations Scalability OEM agnosticism Holistic document management capabilities Ability to maintain leading edge on industry trends, technology Ability to implement a unified program across a single campus with highly diverse customers Local economic inclusion Ability to benefit the most people at Penn Ongoing process improvement and continuous cost savings
Team Evaluation Process Written RFP Responses (5) Written RFP Responses (5) Pilot Print Assessments (2) Pilot Print Assessments (2) On-Campus Presentations (2-3) On-Campus Presentations (2-3) Approach: Relative ranking by weighted scorecard Goal: Scoring results used to short- list Award (1) Award (1) Approach: Short scorecard used by evaluation team Goal: Validate written RFP response content Goal: Validate short-list by written RFP scoring Approach: Identify business areas for parallel assessments Goal: Determine which supplier best “fits” in Penn environment Goal: Gain comfort with level of expertise Goal: Determine if MPS recommendations fit typical Penn requirements. Approach: Reconvene evaluation & extended team Review findings, assessment experiences, and review supplier recommendations Goal: Determine if enough data and pilot experience exists to make an informed, data-driven, defensible award decision. Major activities for RFP evaluation: 1.Written RFP responses 2.Supplier presentations 3.Pilot assessment evaluation Award Decision Ended May 31June 17, 2013
MPS Rationale School of Dental Medicine Maria Mejia, IT Director School of Veterinary Medicine Smith Ragsdale, IT Director
Business Case for MPS: TOP FIVE REASONS FOR MPS: 1. We have no idea how many printers the school uses and how much it costs us 2. Save money, especially following print assessment and right-sizing activities 3. Make better use of existing assets 4. Increase customer service levels for all printer-related issues 5. Allows Dental IT to “get out of the printer business” BONUS: Practice what we preach – we are an electronic practice! Client Profile: 632 Students & Residents/Post-Docs, 285 Faculty (including full-time and adjunct), 283 Staff 213 print output devices Complexities: Remote faculty practice locations: On-campus, Bryn Mawr, 34 th & Market Street (University City) Patient confidentiality concerns; HIPAA Student privacy; FERPA
2 nd Floor Schattner Most Severe Case: A Printer Per Person Unmanaged environment
Nearly a Printer Per Room: 4 th Floor Levy Unmanaged environment
Success in Similar Environment: 5 th Floor Levy Fully managed environment
Side by Side: 3 rd Floor Evans Fully managed environment Unmanaged environment
TOP FIVE REASONS FOR MPS: 1.We have no idea how many printers the school uses and how much it costs us. 2.Allows Vet IT to “get out of the printer business” 3.Save money, especially following print assessment and right-sizing activities 4.Increase customer service levels for all printer-related issues 5.Seems like a really good idea Client Profile: 425 Students, 235 Faculty, 600 Staff Number of print output devices: NO IDEA Complexities: Remote campuses: New Bolton Center and Working Dog Center Vet hospitals: Preponderance of stand alone printers Student printing Business Case for MPS:
Ryan Veterinary Hospital 3 rd Floor (Asset DB tool used to map printers & cost)
MPS Project Evaluation Team: Eric BowdenAnnenberg School for Communications Lena BufordAnnenberg School for Communications Kim ByrdGraduate School of Nursing Brent FriedmanPurchasing Services Maria MejiaSchool of Dental Medicine John Mulhern, IIIISC Technology Support Services Smith RagsdaleSchool of Veterinary Medicine James Tarver, PhDSAS/Chemistry Omar TelanISC Technology Support Services Susan TraceyUniversity Lab Animal Resources Special thanks to our extended team and others that contributed to the project: Ray AullPurchasing Services Par BowlerBusiness Services Clare DinSAS Computing Dan GarofaloFacilities and Real Estate Services Tom GudmundsenBusiness Services Chris HansonFacilities and Real Estate Services Vira HomickPurchasing Services Susan KennedyBusiness Services Justin Klein KeaneSAS Computing Andrea KreinerFacilities and Real Estate Services Mark MillsPurchasing Services Melissa MuthISC Information Security Kristin NelsonISC Technology Support Services Warren PetrofskySAS Computing Colleen ReardonPurchasing Services
Penn Purchasing Services: Our Role Strategic sourcing is an institutional procurement process that continuously improves and re-evaluates the purchasing activities of an organization. Sourcing is considered one component of supply chain management. Key Responsibilities: Draft, negotiate, execute supplier contracts Assess and mitigate risk Maximize value for Penn’s supplier investments Transaction review & approval Develop entrepreneurial sourcing strategies (RFI, RFQ, RFP, Reverse Auctions, Negotiation Planning) Mission Statement: To leverage our institutional knowledge, procurement expertise, and technology in order to provide solutions to our customers and optimal financial return-on- investment to the University.
Traditional Role “Purchasing” Penn Purchasing Services: Strategic Sourcing Modern Role “Strategic Sourcing” Marketplace Analysis
Penn Purchasing Services: Uncovered Value Where Strategic Sourcing Delivers Added Value
Penn Purchasing Services: Sustainability Initiatives Writing Instrument Recycling Point-of-use In-line Water Filter/Coolers Office Depot Tote Delivery Program Toner Cartridge Recycling Shift to 10-30% PCR Paper
Penn Purchasing Services: Economic Inclusion & Supplier Diversity Penn seeks to encourage local business growth, empower diversity and women business owners, provide women and minorities with greater access to the skilled and higher-paying trades, and create jobs. Over $90M invested annually with local, small businesses Recognized as a leader in higher education supplier diversity & economic inclusion