Articles by CBAssociates

Published, Newspapers and Technology, October 2000

Is New Equipment Just A Replacement?

Let me run some questions by you… Is a Computer to Plate (CTP) system a replacement for an imagesetter? Is a new press a replacement for an old press? Or what about a new inserter, does this replace the old inserter? Is a new production facility a replacement for an old operation? And has the computer been a replacement for the typewriter?

If you answered "Yes" to the above, then we should talk. Although these pieces of equipment make the others obsolete, to think of them as a replacement is a common mistake. This is a classic paradigm problem.

It is common to think, when replacing a car, that the purpose is just to get more dependable transportation. However, is it just a replacement if you have young children and you buy a van instead of a car? Of course not. You use and benefit from the van in ways a car could not and you have much more than a car that looks quite different.

Both get you from point A to B, but that is where the similarities end. All other aspects, from the number of people it holds, to the ease of putting a child in a car seat, to the entertainment devices you might purchase, and to what you can haul are very different.

I cannot think of any expenditure that bothers me more than to just replace equipment with something that just does the same thing. To buy something that does not have some plus benefits over the old equipment, except that it works better, has to be the most depressing expenditure possible. That is pure overhead. My wife did not even do that when she purchased a new a toaster.

We use to have a toaster that did a slice of bread just fine until it quit working. Now we have a toaster that requires an operator's manual, but can toast narrow bread, wide homemade bread, and wide bagels and would probably could toast marshmallows if we actually read the manual. This new toaster of mine does not let me burn the bread and it has replaced a toaster oven for the breakfast tasks.

Luckily, most production equipment purchases have the possibility of not only replacing the equipment, but also enhancing the operation. The person who said: "The height of insanity is doing things the same way, and hoping for a different result," is clearly on the mark.

I can remember when accountants thought buying a computer in the newsroom was a replacement for a typewriter. The initial justification for a front-end system was reducing composing room labor. We did not realize at the time that the benefits of a reduced composing room, all though, substantial, was not the real benefit of the computers.

We were thinking typewriter and Linotype replacement, whereas in reality it was an entirely new way of producing a newspaper. It opened up huge opportunities like performing better analysis and reporting, reducing time from story to print, allowing process color throughout the newspaper and, by the way, the computer reduced costs. Now front-end systems are replaced based on the benefits they provide and not cost savings.

I see some of the same type of restrictive paradigms with some people when they purchase new equipment. As an example, my way of thinking, Computer to Plate is not just a replacement for imagesetters. The justification is so much greater than just on the basis of negative savings.

It should be seen as a radically different way of bridging the gap between editorial creation and the pressroom. A process that reduces the time from the release of a story to the press starting, that greatly improves quality, that reduces waste and allows staff reductions.

A system that allows processing double truck plates for pages that are not scheduled to be replated and singles plates for those that are scheduled. This would reduce the time to plate a press and reduce misregisters significantly. This is a system that does not require printing all pages of a color set on the same machines, which reduces deadlines even more.

A system that reduces the need to have a separate department making plates. The plates can flow unassisted to the press operators. The system will allow the whole concept of where a plate room should be located to be thought out and to question the need for all the equipment to be in the same room.

The concept of Computer to Plate will drive most new doublewide presses to be one around. This will reduce the time it takes to change plates and improve registration, as there is only one plate on a cylinder. It may reduce the weight of the presses and therefore, the cost. The list goes on.

When most presses run straight, the packaging center will not keep up and that process will be redesigned.

Is Computer to Plate a replacement of an imagesetter? Not by a long shot. That is just one of it's benefits, and that may be, as we look back in the coming years, the most minor.

Every commercial operation must go Computer to Plate to be competitive. We will too.

WIFAG said about shaftless, that some day all newspapers will be produced that way. I will go out on a limb and say the same about Computer to Plate.

Of course there may be one benefit of being inhibited by paradigms, and that is, that by the time some realize that Computer to Plate is a reality other newspapers will be starting up Computer to Press systems. Then they can jump to the newest technology.

Want to talk about a new press being a replacement for a old press and that we should plan on using this press for 30 years - don't get me going.

[HOME]