In the world of high volume printing there are a lot of different ways to get an image onto a piece of paper. So many that it can be hard to keep them separate. In some cases, like the very popular offset lithography, they’re really pretty complicated. Plates, blankets, ink trains, etc. in addition to the paper and ink. When you actually think about how much stuff is required to just print an image, it really starts to seem silly.

So when you see inkjet in action it’s hard not to see it as the obvious ultimate solution to the problem of putting ink on paper. You have ink, you spray it on the paper, and you’re done. What could be simpler?

Well, just about anything else. The drops of ink you’re spraying onto that sheet of paper are very, very small and you have to spray a hell of a lot of them to get an image that looks good. No wonder it took us until the last decade or so to figure it out.

Companies like Kodak, Oce, and HP are making headway and now HP has announced that they are creating a 30-inch wide inkjet web press. To date this is the closest thing to an inkjet replacement for a traditional web fed offset press. It won’t be available until late ’09 at the earliest, but this is still fascinating for three reasons.

Disruptive innovations come from outsiders

The best potential replacement for offset was developed by a company with zero experience in offset. In his “How to drive your competition crazy” video Guy Kawasaki tells a story about the guys who used to mine ice in mountain lakes. They weren’t the guys who invented the ice making machine. The ice-making machine guys weren’t the ones who developed the refrigerator. The point of all this is that new, disruptive technologies are almost by definition developed by folks outside of the industries they end up dominating. HP fits that mold. As someone who’s got responsibility for coming up with ways to break this rule, it’s very interesting to me.

The timing and strategy of HP’s announcement

Second is the timing. Drupa, the graphics industry’s largest trade show, held in Germany every 4 years, is in May. HP announced this new web press on March 10th. There is speculation (leaked by HP?) on the price of the system and its expected availability. Price aside the system looks to stomp the competition, but it’s about also about half the price. You can read Andy Tribute’s excellent article on the subject here.

So, you’re HP and you’ve got this new product that you’re just sure is going to clobber the competition. You’ve got the biggest chance in four years to make a splash. Why not announce it?

• You’re poisoning the market. Who’s going to buy a multi-million dollar inkjet press of any brand with the new HP model on the horizon? I think this could be the difference between an inkjet-buying Drupa and an inkjet-shopping Drupa. This will probably also affect sales of HP’s non-inkjet Indigo presses.
• What if you end up pulling a Microsoft and releasing the product in 2012 for $6 million a copy instead of the expected $2.5million? How will you win back the folks who were forced to buy from others when your gizmo didn’t make it to market?
• You’re giving your competition 18 months to react. 18 months might not seem like much time but you can bet that Kodak and Oce have competing products in the works, or are working on ways to make their existing products cheaper and more effective, or both.  18 months is a lot of time to adjust plans.

I’m guessing that the market for multi-million dollar inkjet presses must be small enough that HP figures their best chance of getting in is to take the risks, make the announcement and get folks to wait until their press is available. Kodak and Oce are depending on the sales of their new presses to fund development to stay in the game. If HP can halt their sales they’ll likely halt their ability to develop countermeasures to HP’s new press.

The scary speed of inkjet evolution

When I left engineering in 1998 to be product manager of finishing products, the inkjet printers that could print at 400 ft/minute had a hard time matching the print quality of a grocery store cash register tape. It was ok for an address or a simple message, but even changing fonts (they were not dynamic) was not easy. You could print in any single color you want, as long as it’s black or red.

There were also printing systems based on desktop inkjet cartridges that were used to address envelopes and the like, but they were slow, not very reliable and the quality was not much better.

Scitex later came out with their 9” wide four-color system, and it was pretty cool but expensive and slow.

Here we are 10 years later and HP says they have a press 30” wide, perfecting, and 400 feet per minute.

At some point the increasing speed and quality of inkjet will cross the needs currently placed on offset, and we’ll see wholesale replacement of offset presses. In general the forecast for printed items is that they’ll be smaller, more targeted and more often in color, and those play to inkjet’s strengths.

Right now a 36” wide offset web press printing 1400 fpm is about $5 million, with a folder. For that same money you get two 30” presses printing at 400fpm with no (or at least severely reduced) make ready. But, no folder, and limitations on both print quality and compatible papers.

I don’t think inkjet is there yet, but I don’t think it’s too many models away.

I’ve always thought JibberJobber was just a clever idea. It’s a site designed to help job hunters manage all the stuff they need to be effective. What I really liked about it was that it’s inventor, Jason Alba, created the site while he himself was out of work. I think by now it’s successful enough he probably isn’t looking for work any more. How can you not admire someone like that?

Anyway, a while back he started a rebranding contest, and I was one of two winners. I thought my entry was good, but I didn’t really think I’d win. What a fantastic surprise!

On my way to work I often end up on the phone with an old friend. I keep threatening to podcast the conversations because they’re often pretty insightful, even if I do say so myself. To make up for it, they’re sometimes just drivel.

But back to the insight.

Today we came to a great conclusion:

Information isn’t power. It’s fuel.

To put it another way, information doesn’t do great things, it enables great things. In order to get the great things out of it, you have to act on it, which means it must have some value to drive action. It must be actionable.

But many folks have this backward. They think the action part is mostly supposed to be about gathering the information, and that once gathered it will somehow produce benefit by its mere existence.

Are you doing this? Are you collecting status reports from your people, filing them away, distributing them to people all in the hopes that by some sort of motive osmosis power will be extracted from them? It may be that those reports contain a lot of information, but it’s not actionable information because it’s not needed.

The best way to differentiate real buyers from tire kickers was to ask about the details of their need. When do they need the product? When do they want it delivered? Why do they need it? If there’s detail in the answers, then you have a real buyer. If not, then you have a tire kicker. They may be interested in buying someday but they don’t have the real need yet. It’s the same with information. If you need it, you know what you need because you have questions to be answered.

If information is fuel, strategy is the engine.

If you have lots of information lying around and don’t know what to do with it, it’s probably a symptom that you lack a focused need. Strategy is what guides the business and ultimately creates that need. Strategy is executed through tactics, which require planning, which in turn requires information.

Symptoms of the lack of strategy:

1. You’re drowning in reports and other information, but you can’t seem to get value out of it. The need isn’t there, so the information isn’t actionable, and no action is taken from it.
2. Major decisions are made (not thought about, not discussed, but actually made) as a reaction to outside forces. A customer demands new technology, cancels an order, or switches to a competitor and someone snaps and a decision gets made. The world is fluid and reacting to it is often a large part of business, but it shouldn’t drive the business.
3. Discussions about “What business are we really in, and where are we headed?” and similar subjects erupt unexpectedly during meetings, and delay activity. The key here is that they delay whatever was about to take place. If there’s no delay, then the eruptions are more likely caused by a lack of communication on the strategy rather than the lack of strategy itself.

Do you have an engine to burn your fuel?