BMJ Group decided to outsource the typesetting of its specialist journals to reduce costs and improve efficiency. An efficiency review found typesetting costs were high and turnaround times erratic. BMJ conducted an outsourcing review, selecting The Charlesworth Group in the UK to outsource journal typesetting while keeping the BMJ and Clinical Evidence in-house. The implementation involved transitioning over 4 months to the new system while maintaining quality. The outsourcing achieved the goals of reduced costs and improved processes while allowing BMJ to focus on its core business.

1. Outsourcing:
Case Study

2. Case Study 2: Why BMJ Group Decided to
Outsource Specialist Journals
Background to BMJPG
Ø Commercial arm of the British Medical
Association (BMA)
Ø Flagship journal - Weekly BMJ (bmj.com)
Ø 23 specialist titles (BMJJs)
Ø Evidence based products
• Clinical Evidence (CE) (>2,500pp)
Ø Significant online presence (most with
Highwire)
Ø New initiatives
• BMJ Learning
• Best Treatments
© 13th July 2005 2

3. Background to Case Study
Ø Typesetting brought in-house mid-1996
• Interleaf
Ø Interleaf contract cancelled end of 1996
• In favour of Xyvision
• Traditional typesetting system
• Powerful batch pagination
Ø 26 staff
• Pre-editing
• Typesetting
• File delivery / conversion / archiving
• Web administrators
Ø High salaries / benefits; Central London;
‘recharges’
© 13th July 2005 3

4. The Pressures in 2002
Ø High cost of typesetting (per page)
• Backed up by comparisons with other publishers
Ø Core business?
Ø Turnaround times erratic
Ø Xyvision wasn’t “XML aware”
Ø Small development team in-house
• We could not progress quickly
Ø Capital investment
Ø Publishers using offshore alternatives
Ø Efficiency Review
© 13th July 2005 4

5. The Good Stuff
(What we did well in-house)
Ø Quality
Ø Dedicated team
Ø Respected
Ø Workflows
Ø Autoproofing
© 13th July 2005 5

6. Efficiency Review
Ø Activity Based Costing by another name!
Ø Most departments
Ø Consultant led
Ø Mapping all jobs
• Tasks
• Time taken
Ø Actual cost of tasks derived
© 13th July 2005 6

7. Efficiency Review (continued)
Ø Brainstorms (all staff)
• Analysing tasks and roles
• What could be done better?
• Duplication of effort?
• Move tasks to another team?
• Outsource tasks?
Ø Develop ideas; cost solutions
Ø Approve and implement
Ø Strive for 20% savings; expect 6%
© 13th July 2005 7

8. Cost review project
Ø Team set up to analyse costs and potential
changes
Ø Included:
• typesetting team managers
• typesetters
• Operations Director
Ø Some process analysis
• Looking at handovers, workflows (galleys)
• Considered technologies, systems etc
Ø Overlapped with (and superceded by)
Efficiency Review
© 13th July 2005 8

9. Outsourcing Review
Ø Started in 2002; formal project
Ø Project manager from Print Production
Ø Operations Director was sponsor
Ø Team included Editorial staff
• Expertise and buy-in
Ø Considered all products
• BMJ
• BMJJs
• CE
© 13th July 2005 9

10. Outsourcing Review: Objectives
Ø To reduce cost
Ø To maintain or improve quality
Ø To improve turnaround time
• Resilience
Ø To reduce time to publication
Ø To refine and improve workflows
Ø To replicate autoproofing facility (more later)
© 13th July 2005 10

11. Outsourcing Review: Process
Ø Formal structure:
• Invitation to Tender
• Request for Proposal
– Detailed Specification
– Supplied pricing matrix for ease of comparison
• Review and Shortlist
– Scoring system weighted objectives
– Cost; quality; proposal quality; systems; size; customer base;
risk, training and development; business continuity
arrangements
• Visits
– UK (BMJ)
– China (BMJJs)
– India (BMJJs and CE)
© 13th July 2005 11

12. Process (continued)
• Financial Reports / Trade references
• Further discussions with shortlisted suppliers
– Clarification of service / costs
– Teasing out startup and any hidden costs
• Consideration of remaining in-house operation
– Size (for resilience / cost effectiveness)
– Structure
– Redundancies and costs
• Decision and recommendation to the Executive
– Via formal business case
– Including staff redundancy costs
© 13th July 2005 12

13. The decision
Ø To retain BMJ in-house
• Not comfortable with any other supplier
• Weekly journal leaves no room for error
• Editorial liked the close proximity
Ø To retain CE in-house
• Slick in-house solution
• Used Xyvision’s batch pagination to great effect
© 13th July 2005 13

14. The decision (continued)
Ø To outsource BMJ Journals
• To The Charlesworth Group
– UK company with Beijing typesetting operation
– UK Point of Contact deemed very important
• Looked like best ‘organisational fit’
• Recommended phased handover
• Loss of eight staff through redundancy
• Page price reduced by at least two thirds
• Savings helped some failing journals
© 13th July 2005 14

15. Implementation Phase
Ø Following Exec approval
• New project – ‘Implementation’
• Same sponsor
• New project manager (me)
Ø New team
• BMJ Journals specific
• Kept Editorial presence
- Key stakeholder
- Expertise and buy-in
© 13th July 2005 15

16. Objectives
Ø New objectives:
• Implement transition of BMJ Journals
typesetting
– On time
– Within budget
– While achieving original objectives
© 13th July 2005 16

17. Methods
Ø Project management techniques
• Regular (structured) meetings
• Clear actions and dates
• Project plan
• Risk register
Ø Used Charlesworth’s implementation
experience
Ø Phased transition over 4 months
• Avoid big bang
• Sensible phasing (journal frequencies; printers)
• Resource still available in-house
© 13th July 2005 17

18. Considerations
Ø Managing the fear of change
• Regular communication
• Use project team to disseminate news
• Training; support; documentation
Ø Don’t forget third parties
• Keep them informed
– New workflows
– New delivery methods
– Timescales
– TEST!
© 13th July 2005 18

19. The detail
Ø Major tasks included:
• Creating more than 30 unique templates in
Charlesworth’s system (Advent 3B2)
– Helped by detailed documentation (2002 Redesign)
– Enormous effort to build and test / QA
• Creating new Word templates for copy editors
– With simple installation
• Migrating covers to Charlesworth’s Quark
system
• Imparting knowledge to Beijing via UK office
– Chinese whispers?!
© 13th July 2005 19

20. The detail (continued)
Ø Charlesworth dedicated project manager
and senior software developer
• Very professional
• Eased the transition
• Helped solve the mysteries of XML
• Despite all this, there were setbacks, errors,
wrong assumptions, miscommunications …
© 13th July 2005 20

21. Developing ‘The Good Stuff’
Ø Autoproofing
• Copy editors create typeset pages …
• … and deliver to authors within minutes
• Already developed in-house
– but on a small scale
• Charlesworth helped us to:
– Refine
– Develop
– Integrate
© 13th July 2005 21

22. What is autoproofing dealing with?
© 13th July 2005 22

23. Key Successes
Ø Project was on time
Ø … and on budget
• No hidden / unexpected costs
Ø Our journals are now XML based
Ø Overall process more integrated and
seamless
Ø Have continued to develop the workflows
and systems
Ø Additional revenue stream realised (Online
First)
© 13th July 2005 23

24. Lessons
… From both typesetting review 2002 and
copy editing review 2006
Ø Visiting was the right thing to do
• Helped manage people’s perceptions of
working conditions, moral implications etc
Ø Don’t underestimate the size of the task
• Moving work is a big deal
• Ongoing management of outsourced work
• Schedule (and cost) regular visits / reviews
© 13th July 2005 24

25. Lessons? (continued)
Ø Refer back to Objectives
Ø Lots of Quality Assurance
Ø Test as much as you can
• Deliveries to third parties …
Ø Consider parallel working
• Cost can be prohibitive
Ø Documentation and detail essential
• Be specific about requirements
• Document workflows and methods for users
Ø Relationship can drive both organisations
forward
© 13th July 2005 25

26. Lessons? (continued)
Ø Local point of contact priceless
Ø Budget realistically – problems happen
Ø Allow time for contract approval
Ø Risk analysis (pros and cons at least)
Ø Communicate!!
Ø Sense check resources; don’t be afraid to stop
and take stock
Ø Schedule and cost visits (remember how much
you’re saving…)
Ø Take the opportunity to review processes and
workflows
© 13th July 2005 26

27. Thank you.
© 13th July 2005 27