Algospark delivers automated compliance solutions for labels and marketing collateral. We know how helpful these tools are. But how valuable are they? And why you should get them prioritised in the business case queue?
Compliance checking is very important - it makes sure things are right and delivered on message.
It tends to be difficult, it can be tedious and it is easy to make mistakes.
Most organisations tend to have numerous roles involved, each with many team members. This means co-ordinating the compliance process is also part of the value of automating a compliance procedure.
To bring this "how to" guide to life. Let's use an example of an automated labels compliance tool that automates checking of label artwork against a product specification sheet and label rules for a particular market and product category. Let's assume the current process uses spreadsheets for rules checking, PDF files of labels and approval chains that are completed using email.
Key benefits of automation:
- Consistency of results - manual checking can produce different results depending on who does it, when and under what time pressure. Machine checking generates always generates the same output.
- Quality of checking - machines are meticulous, they do not forget and do not accidently miss things. The quality of checking is much higher for automated processes. However, they do rely on good quality inputs.
- Using the right checklist - automation ensures that the right checklists are used. Manually checking could mean rule checks are missed or extra irrelevant rules applied.
- Time savings on checking - machines can run multiple rule checks and generate automated reports in seconds. Manually checking can easily take 15-30+ minutes.
- Time savings on process approval: co-ordinating and following-up with people involved in the process is much more efficient if managed in a co-ordinated tool rather than relying on email.
- Reduction in risk - lower errors and consistent outputs mean less risk of "bad" approvals.
- Reduction in wasted downstream spend - "bad" approvals mean wasted print runs, reputational damage and in some cases lead to litigation.
- Better environmental impact - less printing, less activity time per document and less downstream wasted activities.
- Allows staff to focus on verification of more standard approvals and focus expertise on reviewing "edge cases" or more difficult / nuanced approval decisions.
In summary, the key drivers are quality increases, cost savings, risk mitigation and better employee engagement.
We follow these steps to quantify the benefits:
- Select areas of the business with the largest volumes of approvals first.
- Focus on approvals that have the highest number of iterations (error detections and reworking).
- Quantify how long the checking currently takes per approval and per iteration and compare to the new way of working. This should generate savings of around 70%.
- Quantify how many "bad" approvals got through the process and what the cost of remedy was. The new way of working should aim to reduce this by 50%+
- Quantify how long an approval chain (reviewer to approver 1 to approver 2, etc.) takes and how the time can be reduced by linking automated approvals to automated process approval. The new way of working should speed up the process by 30-50%. This means products can be sold earlier. This impact of this should be quantified.
So that covers the benefit line of the business case. The costs should include solution development costs, hosting, support, maintainance and rule review and retraining costs. When these are mapped out on a monthly basis over a 3 year period, and if there are sufficient approval volumes - it will produce a compelling business case.
Done in the right way, moving to an automated compliance processes will help increase checking quality, reduce costs and reduce risks. It will also generate a strong financial return and should be near the top of the development "to do" list.
