---

At first glance, you may think that TV makeover guru Gok Wan has little relevance to the macho world of printing. Indeed, your average printer probably hasn’t even seen Gok’s particular iteration of the makeover format. However, following the recent release of the Heidelberg Speedmaster  CX 102 and the Komori Enthrone, the fashionista’s philosophy of creating a ‘new you’ by doing nothing more than putting the subject in different clothes may strike a chord among printers. For rather than innovating and experimenting, press manufacturers appear to be doing a bit of a Gok Wan themselves.

The CX 102 appears to be, for the most part, a CD 102 in an XL 105 skirt. And the Enthrone resembles a Spica and Lithrone trouser-and-blouse combo. But is this liberal use of the word "new" systematic of a lack of research and development (R&D) investment in the industry as a whole, with budgets impacted by the recession? Or, is it is actually an intelligent use of existing technology that has had small but significant updates to meet market demands?

A reduction in R&D budgets during the recession would be more than understandable and, for some, that has certainly been the case. "There is less money coming in across the industry and printers’ investment cycles are longer. As a result, we have to cut back our R&D," explains Gernot Keller, UK B1 product manager at Heidelberg.

It’s a sentiment echoed by Manroland GB managing director Norman Revill, who says R&D spend is significantly lower than it was three years ago as a result of the financial climate.

KBA, Goss and Komori, however, claim they have managed to protect their R&D departments from the downturn. Christian Knapp, KBA UK managing director, says this is due to the necessity to adopt a long-term outlook. "The problem with reducing R&D budgets is that it only works for a couple of years, as people will eventually move on to newer products and you don’t have the cash to invest to catch up."

A piecemeal approach
Knapp adds that the true impact of a reduction in R&D won’t manifest itself for some time. The products of today were conceived at least a couple of years ago and so, as Murray Lock, managing director of Mitsubishi’s new UK distributor M Partners explains, that could result in an interesting Drupa 2012. "At present, you’re not going to see the impact but, at Drupa, you may well be looking at the new launches thinking ‘didn’t I see this technology at Ipex?’."

But are printers actually asking for anything different to be revealed at tradeshows like Drupa? The high tide of the recession may have long receded, but its impression is still clear on the sand. R&D does not come cheap and any game-changing press will reflect that with a painful price tag. A costly investment on unproven technology in an uncertain market isn’t likely to be a popular business decision.

However, there is also a wider issue. The basic lithographic process hasn’t changed, theoretically, for 100 years. What’s occurred is a process of evolution that has ensured the presses have remained contemporary and competitive, be it in terms of makeready times, production and quality gains, or environmental enhancements. These seemingly small innovations may not grab headlines and get a show-stopping Drupa or Ipex ‘reveal’, but their impact is often substantial.
"A lot of the advances are incremental improvements," says Knapp. "Though they may be considered small advances, they could have a massive impact for a commercial printer. An example is the way we can feed energy back into our presses. Is that revolutionary? I don’t know. But it saves our customers a lot of money."

And it’s not just ‘new’ that saves money or brings benefits. Technological innovation has always been a Frankenstein process and, just as the iPod brought together a myriad of external storage and LCD display advances, print has always been a master of scavenging to bring both technological and cost gains to consumers.

"Re-examining existing technologies and applying latest know-how to proven processes or equipment can provide benefits for customers that might far outweigh the merits of starting an entirely new development," says Eric Bell, Goss International EMEA marketing manager. "We could only build the 96-page Goss Sunday press because we had enabling innovations like gapless blankets, Autoplate, DigiRail, Ecocool and multiple-ribbon handling technologies."

Komori UK head of marketing Philip Dunn adds that manufacturers should go even further and look to technologies outside their own sector. He reveals that Komori is constantly looking at how sheetfed innovation can bring benefits to web printing, and vice versa.
"There should not be an assumption that we should only pay attention to technologies directly affecting us as press manufacturers," he adds. "We should be looking at things like computer-to-plate technology or UV technology and seeing how we can capitalise on those innovations."

It all sounds very positive, but when you look at Komori’s Enthrone and perhaps more so Heidelberg’s CX 102, it is difficult to see where any true innovation has occurred. Rather than scavenging exciting new or complementary technologies and adapting them to litho applications, or innovating themselves, some have claimed the presses are just a straight rebadge of old presses. But both manufacturers say these presses are actually another stage of print’s evolution, that they are adaptations to meet market demand.

"The Enthrone is a reaction to what has been happening in the marketplace over the past few years," says Dunn. "The smaller printer is being asked to, and wants to, do more work than before. A mix of the Lithrone and the Spica fits the bill to give the smaller high-street printers what they were asking for. You don’t think about it as a repackage or a revamp, you just react to what the market tells you."

Heidelberg’s Keller agrees: "Some printers didn’t want the speed of the XL 105, but wanted the makeready advantages of it, so we looked at what we could apply to the CD 102 platform to make it slightly faster and to give the makeready advantages to enable an affordable solution to the demand."

They both make a compelling point; manufacturers react to the market and, at the moment, the CX 102 and Enthrone are meeting the demand for affordable ways to gain a competitive advantage. But M Partner’s Lock argues it is not up to the consumer to drive innovation, as it is the R&D departments have the cross-sector vision .

That’s not to say innovation takes place in isolation to the market. A look at print’s past uncovers some horror stories of what happens if a manufacturer loses track of what the consumer actually requires. Among the most high-profile of these were perhaps Manroland’s DICOweb and Goss’s ADOPT (see box). Both were critically lauded for taking presses into an entirely new direction but, as unique as they were, neither found a market.

"As a visionary technology, the ADOPT inspired the industry to imagine what the future might hold, but it was a leap too far for customers," admits Bell.

Manroland’s Revill is similarly honest. "With the DICOweb, we spent an awful lot of money on something that was years ahead of its time. But clearly, we needed to find a market for it and we unfortunately failed to find that."

Listening to the customer
For Heidelberg’s Keller, these instances of false promise are not things to be ashamed of, but are lessons to be learnt from. Heidelberg’s own Multiplate technology at the start of the 1990s found a similar fate to the ADOPT and DICOweb.
"Sometimes, you develop something that in the end turns out to be over the top. You have to take note of it and learn from that so you avoid repeating the mistake. The innovation has to make practical sense and, to do that, you have to really listen closely to your customers."

Komori’s Dunn gives the example of an innovation that knocks a minute off makeready times. "You would have to evaluate how much that minute’s gain would cost," he says. "If it is too expensive and does not represent a good ROI for the printer, they won’t buy it."

Increasingly, as margins plummet further and litho gets more and more squeezed by rival media, cost pressures will throw a lot more innovation into the ‘won’t buy’ category. However, far from putting press manufacturers off R&D investment, it has spurred them on to work harder to find innovations and compatible technologies that can still help printers compete, but that are also more affordable.

---

R&D LESSONS LEARNED

Manroland DICOweb
Released 2002
Manroland’s £3.5m press eliminated the need for plates. A 200-channel laser diode head transferred a 1.5micron layer of ink-receptive thermal polymer from a ribbon directly onto the forme cylinder.
What they said then "It’s frankly brilliant" – Malcolm Frost, Manroland’s then technical sales manager
What they say now "Unfortunately, we failed to find a market for it" – Normal Revill, Manroland GB MD

Goss ADOPT
Released 2000
ADOPT stood for Advanced Digital Offset Printing Technologies Concept Press. It also eliminated plate use with a nickel-oxide coated cylinder that was digitally imaged with a copper-based solution.
What they said then "The advantages over conventional offset and current digital technology are plain to see" – former PrintWeek editor Adam Leyland
What they say now "It was a leap too far for customers" – Eric Bell, Goss International EMEA marketing manager