Has anyone figured out a definition yet?
MPS is complex as a product, including hardware, services, software and consulting. Since it is new for (nearly) everybody, there has been a fair amount of discussion regarding the proper definition of the term. And just to compound the issue, a player with a printer background will have a different view of the world and a different view of the MPS industry and products than a player with an MFP (or consumables, or service, or . . .) background.
Where you stand depends on where you sit.
Still, it seems like there has been a lot of movement, mostly in the positive sense, regarding the definition issue. The discussion will certainly not go away, but if we think back a year we will also realize how far we have come.
In early 2009, definition of MPS was a hot issue. At the inaugural MPS Conference many discussions revolved around this topic. It came up as a key discussion point to understand and apply many presentations. It was discussed as a key task at the founding meeting of the Managed Print Services Association. We were not a lot further than the famous statement from Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart addressing the issue of obscenity: “I don’t know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.”
We know that any definition of a complex and dynamic object will be a challenge. Didn’t somebody (Ken? Greg?) already refer to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle when discussing this very topic? Parallels from the world of physics and quantum mechanics: as soon as you stabilize an object in order to define it, other factors which are crucial for that definition become less certain and make that definition impossible. Sound familiar?
Still, we can now get very close conceptually. In a way, you will always have to triangulate, but it’s possible. At Photizo, we have a long list of “probable” program components (if an engagement includes several of these items, it is a good fit for MPS), a short list of strategic approaches (coverage of all device types, dynamic fleet management, inclusion of document workflow and business processes), and the now-famous 3-Stage model (control, optimize and enhance).
Yes, we can still spot more recent (and passionate!) exchanges about how to define MPS. This phenomenon should not surprise us, for at least a couple of reasons:
- New participants are joining the industry all the time: vendors, channel partners and clients. While the discussion is no longer new for us, it is certainly new (and highly relevant) for them.
- There are a lot of alpha animals in this industry. Rather than adopting somebody else’s definition and methodology, many feel compelled to develop, promote and defend their own version.
Nonetheless, I would be surprised if the upcoming MPS Conference (http://www.mpsconference.com/) witnesses the same interest in this definition topic. That discussion is just so “last year.”
This is a blog, so tongue and cheek do come into contact occasionally. The issue is certainly serious, but we are allowed to have a light-hearted take at serious issues as well. And here comes Heisenberg again: we may finally be approaching a common understanding about what we mean when we use the phrase MPS, just about the time when the world moves on, and we have to start all over again. Or at least reconsider. It should surprise nobody that a refresh of the concept and the overall definition is nearly upon us.
Connect
Well said.
And here comes another wrinkle – I heard somebody refer to the first two stages as “MPS” the remainder as “Managed DOCUMENT Services” – splitting the current paradigm into two separate entities.
As a matter of fact, in the context of our conversation, this person was referring to supplies, and service management as “just MPS”, for the “down the street sales…”
…interesting…