Trendspotting: Workflow Part 3 JDF Certification—Why Should You Care?

So far in our workflow series, we have examined the meaning of workflow and why it is important to our businesses as well as the importance of introducing lean manufacturing concepts in order to ensure that work processes are as efficient as possible.


So far in our workflow series, we have examined the meaning of workflow and why it is important to our businesses as well as the importance of introducing lean manufacturing concepts in order to ensure that work processes are as efficient as possible. In this article, we turn our attention to the work being undertaken by CIP4 and the Printing Industries of America to advance the JDF standard and to make it easier for print service providers to ensure that investments in new technology will deliver the full benefits that JDF automation can deliver.

When the JDF concept was first introduced to the market by industry standards body CIP4 (www.cip4.org), many suppliers to the industry began incorporating JDF into their products. In the early days, suppliers could claim that their products were JDF-enabled, but there was no assurance that products from multiple vendors could effectively interact with each other in accordance with the standard.

That led to an arduous process of pairwise interoperability tests—meaning a pair of products, whether from the same supplier or different suppliers, would be tested in a controlled environment, with changes to the software made to correct any connectivity issues that were discovered.

This obviously was a very time-consuming process, and not sustainable over the long haul. To provide the market with better assurances about the ability to implement multi-vendor JDF-compliant solutions, CIP4 began developing Interoperability Conformance Specifications, or ICS, that would allow for product certifications.

Checking out the company to see whether they are participating in the certification program should be part of the due diligence of product selection.

The Printing Industries of America/Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (PIA/GATF) raised its hand to act as the initial certification body, and Dr. Mark Bohan was brought on board to manage the process.

Bohan is vice president, research and technology, with Printing Industries of America in Sewickley, Penn. In his current role, he is responsible for all technical research, graphic services, environmental health and safety, and is the TAGA managing director.

He oversees the Supplier Advisory Committee and Research Committee for PIA/GATF, and is responsible for the development of the JDF product certification program for CIP4, coordinating the implementation of JDF-enabled products at PIA/GATF.

I recently had a long and very enlightening conversation with Bohan to discover where the certification process stands today, and what near-term advances are expected.

Printing News: Dr. Bohan, can you give us a little background on why the certification process was put in place?

Mark Bohan: The certification process was initiated by CIP4 in 2003. At the time, the JDF specification had been developed and there were lots of suppliers saying, “I am JDF this and JDF that, which didn’t really mean anything. Anyone could put an XML tag into their code and say they were JDF-enabled. That doesn’t actually give you any functionality or confidence about what the product is able to do.

George Ryan was COO of PIA/GATF at the time, and he negotiated with CIP4 to establish a certification process that would, in effect, put a validation stamp in the use of JDF. It was a difficult challenge, one that needed the right staff of people in place.

That is one of the reasons I was brought over from the United Kingdom to head up the program. It had to be set up in such a way that it was effective, detailed, but not cost prohibitive.

PN: Had the certification process been tried in the past for other standards in the industry?

MB: Yes. If we look back to CIP3 ink presetting as an example, that cost about $10,000 for certification, and only one company ever went through it. We obviously wanted a much broader adoption. The decision was made to use existing CIP4 tools, and no proprietary tools or information, both to maintain the unbiased nature of the process and to keep costs in line.

This content continues onto the next page...
comments powered by Disqus