Implementing Managed Print Services Using a Phased, Customized Rollout

1. Bill Harris, Marla Collins, Denise Finn and Peggy Akridge October 20, 2011 Implementing Managed Print Services Using a Phased, Customized Rollout

2. Managed Print Services (MPS) Program A Partnership between The University of Kentucky and IKON, A Ricoh Company

3. The University of Kentucky • Annual budget of 2.4 billion dollars • 28,000 students • 11,900 employees • Main campus includes 726 acres and 9.5 million sq. ft of space • Includes 2 research and teaching hospitals and 5 medical clinics • 7 National Titles in Men’s Basketball

4. The Problem • Too much equipment • Wrong equipment • Proliferation of vendors and equipment models • Redundant layers of printing • Fragmented purchasing • Poor management and monitoring • Wasteful environmental practices

5. The Solution • Right size • Consolidate the purchasing model • Manage the output function

6. What is Managed Print Services (MPS)? • MPS is a service offered by an external provider to analyze and manage document output devices to reduce the total cost of ownership (including expenses for supplies, maintenance, and energy) and improve efficiency and productivity. • MPS includes: • Equipment, supplies (excluding paper), preventive maintenance, parts and repair, software • Guaranteed service level response times • Detailed account usage and simplified billing utilizing a cost per impression model • Flexibility for equipment changes • Ease of managing contract terms and conditions (one contract)

7. Beginning the Project • The MPS Project was sponsored by the CIO for Information Technology, CIO for HealthCare, and the Director of Purchasing • Team Lead and Purchasing representative were chosen • RFP team was assembled • Team met with Gartner Group who consulted on project

8. Current Environment • The University contracted with more than 35 vendors to purchase, lease, and maintain output devices and supplies • Equipment purchases/leases weredecentralized; both vendor and equipment choices were at the department level if contract is available • There is no complete inventory of equipment; either networked or stand alone • Costs for current output for University could only be estimated by purchased consumables

9. What we’ve learned: • Best Practice Target Ratio: 12:1 UK Ratio: 2.2:1 • Heavy use of Inkjet Printers • UK purchased 130M sheets of paper last year = 1.3M pounds = 15,600 trees. Paper would reach from Lexington to California. • Sample assessment revealed: • 33 unique manufacturers • 632 unique models • Excess of 1000 supply SKUs, with stockpiles of supplies on hand • Estimated UK was spending $6.7 million for output annually on direct costs, or $.0515 cpi based on 130M impressions • MPS program average blended CPI is $.02 over term of contract

10. Goals of MPS Project • To form a partnership with one vendor and replace the University’s current state for Copier/Scanner/Printer/Fax equipment. • To lower the total cost of ownership for Managed Print Services • To reduce environmental impact by reducing paper and toner usage, energy consumption and equipment put in the landfill (support sustainability) • To reduce space needs • To streamline operations, standardize equipment, and increase efficiency

11. RFP Team • Heavily weighted with technology people • Good representation of campus • Made up of members from pilot program colleges/departments

12. Use of Gartner • What is MPS? • How to create a viable MPS sourcing strategy • How to evaluate MPS providers and select the provider best positioned to accomplish intended outcome? • How to foster a successful relationship with MPS providers? • Provide insight during RFP development • Conference calls to discuss price negotiations

13. RFP Process • The RFP was written for a two-step submission process • Step I • Received submissions from twelve vendors • Invited six vendors to make presentations • Step II • Requested four vendors complete equipment inventory, questionnaire of a sample of the campus and hospitals • Reviewed revised financial proposals and invited all four vendors for final interviews • Final • Entered into negotiations • Contracted with one vendor

14. RFP: Campus Assessment for Step II • Purpose: • To have vendors collect data we did not have in order for them to provide accurate financial proposals • Approach: • Selection of representative “sample” of campus • Each vendor was given approximately same area sizes to cover • Data from each vendor was compiled and redistributed to all vendors in preparation for financial proposals • Distribution of RFP team members throughout sample areas • Provided support for vendors • Provided opportunity to test working relationships with the vendors

15. Timeline for MPS Project • Issue Request for Proposal – competitive bid March 2010 • Conduct Equipment and Needs Assessment June thru July 2010 • Go / No-Go Decision August 2010 • Final Vendor(s) contract signed – January 6, 2011 • Pilot Groups – began January 6, 2011 • Office of CIO Information Technology • Office of CIO Health Care • College of Medicine • College of Health Sciences • Library • Peterson Service Building • Associate Dean Extension, College of Agriculture • Vice President Research • College of Pharmacy • Incremental Implementation (18-24 months)

16. Vendor Chosen • Reputation • Accommodate our model • Willingness to commit needed resources • Competitive pricing Why IKON: a Ricoh Company?

17. The Contract • A partnership between one vendor and the university; five year contract with two extensions for lowering the TCO for the university; • reduces the environmental impactand reduces energy consumption; • reduces space needs; • streamlines operations, standardizes equipment, increases efficiency and increases option availability • Increases security • Prices per impression; one for black and one for color regardless of equipment • Vendor will own equipment and be responsible for maintenance, service and supplies (except paper) • Response time of 2 hours; hot swaps for hospital areas

18. Pilot Program • MPS program was voluntary – Mandatory Contract for supplies and equipment through vendor • Includes colleges/departments who were early adopters of idea • UK Team to work with vendor • Very important to measure success • Result in demonstrated savings and positive image • Pilot would become foundation for communication about program • Important that savings are accurate • Opportunity to work with vendor and improve process for remaining implementation

19. The Process of Getting with the Program • Executive Sponsor Meeting - the MPS team meets with the Department Head/Dean/Chair • Together they cover the MPS Pre-Implementation Planner • Assessment is done of the current equipment and needs • Validate the assessment and discuss initial recommendations • Make proposal of what to remove, replace, leave in place • Executive Sponsor signs off on proposals and/or asks for changes • MPS team begins work of removing and replacing equipment • Vendor surpluses the equipment as part of the contract

20. Thinking beyond the Pilot • MPS Team has divided the UK campus into quadrants • Each Analyst has a quadrant and is collecting data on the areas not included in the Pilot • This data will speed up the process for putting departments on the program • Total campus assessment to be completed in 24 months • Bridge Program developed – provided temporary devices until department assessments completed

22. Communications Plan • Executive Support • Communication Across Campus • Public Relations Campaign • Create a Positive Image • Communicate Total Value Proposition to UK • Help People Identify Values of Program • Developed “See Blue – Print Green”

23. What we did right!!!!! • Discussed project with a consultant that had been through process before • Listened to the vendors and utilized their expertise • Thought through our processes and made changes to direction when necessary • Got buy-in from upper management • Had varied members on review committee • Invited the right colleges/divisions to be part of the pilot group

24. What we could have done better… • Tightened up timeline; process is very involved and has taken longer than planned • Marketed plan and got buy in from University community earlier • Confirmed dedication of all committee members • Varied makeup of committee – not too IT heavy • Keep team engaged during review process • Thought more about the billing process earlier in the process of Pilot Project

25. What we still need to do…. • In conjunction with IKON, market the program to the University community • Introduce Change Management to the University Community • think before you print!!! • print all items in duplex (double sided) • only use color when absolutely necessary (default B/W) • use a larger machine for large print jobs • remove your desktop printer; consolidate to save energy • use laser instead of inkjet • Manage Contract, confirm savings and share the wealth…

26. Results To Date (October 2011) • Percent of Implementation: 14.5% • Average Overall Savings: 38.2% • Average Device Reduction: 59% • Estimated Annual Savings: $3.5 million • Annual Electricity Savings: $107,000 • Annual Paper Reduction: 920,000 sheets • Annual CO2 Savings: 181,000 lbs. • Square feet saved 2,656 sq. ft.

27. Interesting Reactions Positive • Quote from Library IT Director: “IKON's assessment has laid a firm foundation for an efficient, effective and economical printing plan for the UK Libraries into the future.” Negative • Quote from a Director: “…I have more money than time to deal with this…” • Quote from a faculty member: “…I will chain myself to the printer to prevent it from going away.”

28. For more information: www.uky.edu/MPS

29. Questions???