Nubeprint REPORT MPS COMPLIANT - ANALYSIS OF PRINTER / COPIER MODELS Introduction July 2017 The first Nubeprint MPS Compliance Report was published July 2011. For the first time, a company tested printers and copiers to verify to which extent a third party could adequately manage a device s needs remotely with no onsite dedicated human resources. Indeed, the intent of the report was to ensure the success of this new business category that has grown dramatically since 2007 and to automate tasks that copier dealers have been performing manually for the ages, as well as a way to make the cost per page a global option, accessible to all end-customers and dealers. The Report is the result of deep testing of printer and copier models installed at customers, and under the assumption that the device has to be managed remotely using a data collection agent (DCA). Because the devices are tested for compliance in a working environment, the test takes place under the same conditions that any service company faces when operating its managed print service contracts. The primary goal of an MPS contract is to free the user from the hassle of needing to identify the requirements of the printer such as toner, drums, other supplies and even service requests. The reason end-user adopts MPS is the belief that the contractor must be able to do it better such as controlling costs, anticipating the needs and eliminating any waste during the replenishment process. Thus, such economy is then shared by both the end-user company and the service provider under a win-win approach. The complexity of such task is important. We are not just talking about refilling a tank. We are talking about refilling multiple tanks (4 different toner or ink cartridges, multiple drums, photoconductors, fuser, waste bottle ) making sure that this is done after the old one is fully emptied. As a consequence, the data that the printing device provides is very important, but never enough. The service provider must be constantly vigilant of the level of each one of the cartridges for each one of the devices, and decide when it is the right moment to ship has come. To get an idea of the size of this task, let s imagine that you Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 1 of 12
are managing 1,000 devices. In average each one has 5 cartridges, meaning that your contract specialist would be verifying 5,000 levels every 2 hours! Every working hour your team will verify the status of 3,750 cartridges, decide whether to ship of not and remember those shipped previously in order not to duplicate the delivery (nor your costs). This is simply impossible; no matter how good your monitoring tool is. Therefore, the MPS compliance tests that Nubeprint performs are always under the assumption that the printer or copier would properly facilitate the task of managing them, but a management tool (not just a monitoring tool) must be used by the service provider to accomplish his responsibilities. Differentiating Monitoring from Managing is therefore critical. Monitoring comes from the word monitor, which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as A device used for observing, checking, or keeping a continuous record of something. The number of decisions that the service provider must take is such (3,750 per working hour in an installed base of 1,000 devices) that a monitoring tool is never enough. Some endcustomers reading this text may now realize that their MPS dealer is asking them to proactively call when they need something different other than a toner cartridge. Indeed, this is a real problem that is causing large losses and customer s satisfaction issues. Something I have learned over almost 20 years in MPS is that this business is not suitable for every dealer. It requires the understanding of a complex process management situation, and though most business owners easily get it, in too many cases their team is not prepared. In those cases, some distributors and independent companies have built a platform that they rent to all dealers not willing or not being able to implement it with their own resources. To all of them, this new release of the Nubeprint MPS Compliance Report should be of interest to value how complex it is to manage the install base of printers and copiers. Information about the compliance per individual model is available to Nubeprint customers. Nubeprint is the only technology in MPS that ensures business process automation which guaranties full control of costs, including measuring and reducing waste, and a precise, accurate control of extended yield cartridge usage resulting in positive profits for each contract signed. The Nubeprint Report is issued bi-annually (January and July) to facilitate the most updated information and market trends. Any related question regarding the Nubeprint Report can be addressed to info@nubeprint.com. Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 2 of 12
Scope and limitations of the analysis: The analysis focuses on the ability of the printer to provide sufficient data so that an advanced MPS technology can potentially drive the services. The analysis works under the assumption that the data is homogenous and accurate. Though we know that this is not the case, for the sake of simplicity of this Report we are ignoring the quality of the data. Nevertheless, should you be interested, contact Nubeprint for information (info@nubeprint.com). The reader is advised that a high MPS compliant ratio is not enough to ensure a profitable business free from unneeded deliveries of supplies, and toner waste. As shown in the Report, the MPS compliant ratio is used by Nubeprint to identify the weaknesses of each printer model in the environment of a managed print service contract, which is then improved by Nubeprint tools. This, in short order, will result in higher margins for your MPS, cost per copy businesses and automatic toner replenishment contracts and cutting edge customer experience. The analysis does not differentiate the type of device as long as the document output is homogeneous: an office printer or copier, no matter what its size is (letter, A4, A3, A0 ). As a consequence, the Report includes laser printer, inkjet and solid ink printers, ribbon (including label printers) or large format printers (LFP). This edition includes products from 51 manufacturers. Though some of the companies have merged or simply disappeared, there are still products in the market from the different trademarks and technologies, and therefore they are treated independently for the purpose of a clear MPS compliance analysis. The number of LFP and Ribbon equipment remains small compared to the office printers and copiers, though there seems to be a trend to include one or the other in many offices. Endcustomers are finding the management of these devices to be a burdensome and are requesting the MPS service provider to handle these devices. Having a robust solution to successfully manage these devices becomes a way for the dealer to gain new customers and protect existing ones. Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 3 of 12
Population: The analysis was conducted over 3,400 family models of document output device selected among the most commonly found in the office market. For the purposes of this Report, if a family is composed by 5 models, the Report is bundling them into one. As a consequence, the Report includes over 17,000 different manufacturer models. The models analyzed are classified in 6 different types: monochrome printers, color printers, monochrome MFP (multifunctional including copiers), color MFP, large format printers (LFP) and ribbon printers. 64% of the population analyzed is MFP while 31% are printers, 4% are LFP and 1% is ribbon. Overall 49% is color and the remaining 51% is monochrome, excluding LFP and ribbon. Each one of these 6 types of devices can be included in an MPS contract, and can potentially be managed using and MPS management tool. The vast majority of models use laser technology. Though this may change in the future if the new professional ink devices are successful, right now 68% of color MPFs are laser (up to 100% in the case of monochrome MFPs), which goes up to 86% for color printers (98% in monochrome printers). Most of the monitoring tools in the market can only provide information for just copiers and printers of some models and limited to toner. This analysis is done by Nubeprint using the data or the fleet managed with Nubeprint management tools. Therefore, the information of this report shall only be considered if the reader has a valid Nubeprint license. Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 4 of 12
Market compliance: Overall: Overall, the vast majority of the printer models in the market have a lack of compliance to some degree. Most cases, this is the result of lack of relevant information that is needed for remote management, but it is not limited to it. 38% are compliant to an MPS contract. Only a limited number of them (1%) should be excluded from an MPS contract due to the fact that it is simply not possible to proactively manage the needs of these devices from remote (see graph on page 7). LFP and ribbon printers are the biggest contributors to non-compliant MPS printers. Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 5 of 12
The percentage of non-compliant models has continuously decreased since Nubeprint started to publish this Report in 2011, proving the effort of the device manufacturers to improve the remote connectivity for managing their printer and copiers. Consequently, 62% of the printer and copier models experience significant limitations that cause high risk in terms of profit and customer satisfaction in MPS contracts managed. Such limitation prevents a service provider to deliver a full service. But most limitations are cleared using advanced predictive technology and data processing algorithms that are embedded in Nubeprint MPS software. Overall since 2011, the percentage of models with full compliance remains flat around 40%. There are no relevant changes among those models that have some kind of limitation to be fully MPS compliant. Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 6 of 12
During the last 3 years, we ve observed a steady down trend of models experiencing major issues being MPS compliance, and so has those models that are not compliant at all. In exchange, the percentages of models that experience medium issues have been increasing. When accessing the details of the compliance, it seems very evident that the manufacturers follow different strategies that are not always consistent over time. On one side they try to facilitate the remote management of their devices, but on the other side they try to build barriers as a way to ensure they re selling their own supplies. The consequence is visible when managing the devices with monitoring tools, with duplicate deliveries, or deliveries executed at the wrong moment, damages the profit of the MPS contract. Another trend observed is the intent of some OEMs to provide data that would only be visible when using their own MPS tool. This, in our opinion, could have a negative effect medium term on their positioning in the market. It is well known that the market is multi-brand now more than ever. Forcing the MPS provider (in most cases a dealer) to either use multiple tools (one for each brand) or to abandon the business of managing 100% of the install base in a customer is a strategy that weakens the Dealer. Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 7 of 12
Per manufacturer: The chart below provides what the MPS compliance is for different models analyzed for each manufacturer. The greener the bar is of the manufacturer, the more MPS compliant they are. Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 8 of 12
The radar graph determines how each manufacturer is positioned compared to others. The Index considers each printer model limitation based on its influence on the final result of services in an MPS contract. For example, the weakness of providing sufficient data to manage the black toner cartridge is considered more critical than a weakness related with the fuser, as the toner life cycle is shorter and therefore it requires more attention from the MPS provider. The limitations are also weighted based on their final impact on the profitability of a contract and the quality and automation of the service delivered under a Contract. An MPS service is based on 3 major aspects: the quality of the service, the control of the costs and the automation of recurrent tasks (which goal is to reduce the workload at the service desk). The service provider wants to obtain the highest profitability through efficiency gain and the reduction of costs. Such goal can only be achieved if the effort that the service provider must dedicate to manage the printers and copiers is inferior to the gain. The more compliant the devices are the less effort is to be dedicated. We previously mentioned how important is to understand the difference between managing and monitoring. In such sense, monitoring is the first requirement before an install base of devices can be managed from remote. The complexity and significant workload of an MPS contract requires the automation of all recurrent tasks, and more precisely, the automation of toner and all other cartridges replenishment. Indeed, the MPS activity is composed by the following chain of tasks where Monitoring is just the first one: Monitor Identify the need Initiate the process of replenishment Control replenishment is successful Measure the performance of the replenishment process Identify needs of improving Implement improvements Verify results. This whole chain of processes is repeated for every cartridge of every printer or copier every time. So, wouldn t you want to automate it? Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 9 of 12
The usage of an advanced MPS technology such as Nubeprint minimizes the effort by filling the information and accuracy gaps that cause the lack of compliance. The radar graph from above shows how difficult it would be for an MPS provider to use a plain monitoring tool to handle his business. Each printer or copier model performing differently from an MPS perspective, the MPS provider must have a different attitude depending on the model he is working with. But this is solved by Nubeprint MPS solutions. Nubeprint fills the gaps of each model, and solves its weaknesses making all devices homogenous which simplify the dealer s work load: he can now have one unique process in place that is valid with all models. Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 10 of 12
The graph below shows how each manufacturer s models comply to MPS once Nubeprint software has processed the data collected from the device. Most manufacturers are now close to 100% compliance. This is obtained by using advanced algorithms and ML (machine learning) technology that works individually with every weakness of each printer, therefore, resolving it. Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 11 of 12
Definitions: Managed Print Service Association defines Managed Print Services is the active management and optimization of business processes related to documents and information, including input and output devices. MPS compliant status is the ability for a document output device to be fully serviced by a service provider remotely with zero intervention from the printer or copier user. As a consequence, only network connected models are considered. Each device is graded according to the following criteria: No MPS: a device model that does not provide relevant data that will allow remote and automatic management of the device. This device model cannot be part of an MPS solution. Major issues: the device has limitations to the extent that it produces a severe impact on costs control and therefore on the profitability of an MPS program with this printer/copier model. MPS full automation of the workload is not possible if just working with the device model data. Medium issues: the device has limitations to the extent that it has an impact on costs control, although the impact on the profitability can be limited. MPS workload automation is only partially possible if just working with the device model data. Minor issues: the device has limitations to the extent that it prevents from providing certain MPS services. But still most of the MPS workload can be managed automatically. Full MPS compliant: the document output device model can be fully managed in an automated way for MPS. Costs and profitability are under control. Workload is fully removed (tasks can be automated). NUBEPRINT www.nubeprint.com email: info@nubeprint.com Copyright Nubeprint - www.nubeprint.com Page 12 of 12