twona – Page 2 – TwonaBlog

March 6, 2023April 13, 2023

Asking vs SOPing.

In today’s fast-paced business world, every second counts, and no one wants to waste time on repetitive tasks. One area where this is especially true is in the supply chain of packaging design processes where not only time matters but reducing risk is a key factor of the process. Frequently, supply chain teams are asked to supply information that is mostly static and unchanging, yet the requests for this information continue to pour in. For every artwork material surely comes an email requesting the same information. In these cases, identifying repetitive tasks and documenting the necessary information can help save time across the supply chain while reducing unnecessary risks related to information processing.

Let’s consider the following example: An artwork coordinator requests information from the supply chain team regarding the technical specifications of serialisation printing. The details provided by the supply chain always relate to the market where the product is going to be released (different market, different rules) and change only every one or two years when the regulatory bodies change the laws. The request for information is done for every product, and therefore the response from the supply chain is almost always the same. Furthermore, supply chain is the only team up to date on when the regulations change.

In this situation, creating a set of technical specifications in the form of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) can help streamline the process. The SOP would describe the serialization requirements per market (what information can be printed where and under which technical specifications), and the supply chain team would become the owners of these documents. By creating and documenting these technical specifications, the supply chain team can prevent the information from being requested for every product, thereby saving a tremendous amount of time while reducing the risk of misinformation.

The benefits of creating SOPs and technical documents go beyond time-saving. By documenting and standardizing information, it becomes easier to communicate and collaborate with team members and stakeholders. This standardization can also reduce errors and improve the quality of the work.

Furthermore, the benefits of documenting information go beyond the immediate supply chain team. If the information is needed by other teams, such as quality assurange or regulatory affairs, having a documented SOP can ensure that everyone is on the same page and using the correct information. This can help prevent delays and ensure that all aspects of the product development process are aligned.

In conclusion, identifying repetitive tasks and documenting necessary information can help save time across the entire supply chain of packaging design. The example of creating an SOP for serialization requirements illustrates how this process can be applied in practice on any company that markets products across different countries. By creating and maintaining such documents, teams can save time, reduce the risk of misinformation, and improve the overall quality of their work.

Do you email or do you SOP?

Interested in hearing more?

Click the button below to receive a call, or send us information on what you are looking for to improve Artwork Management. We will be happy to help you!

Get in touch

February 17, 2023

The battle between designers and clients

Effective communication is crucial for the success of any well thought through design project, more so in packaging design for highly regulated ventures such as pharmaceuticals and food. One of the key aspects in the field related to the communication between designers and clients, which can be very challenging at times, particularly when it comes to the approval of designs. This challenge is particularly relevant when tracking multiple design versions. Read on as we explore the key challenges and discuss the benefits of implementing a digital design approval process.

The Challenges

The lack of clarity in the feedback provided by clients is one of the biggest challenges (and pains that designers have to suffer) in the approval process. Designers may create a design that meets the client’s requirements (in principle), only to receive feedback that is not clear, ambiguous and difficult to follow. This can lead to a frustrating back-and-forth process, usually by email, that wastes time and may not lead to a satisfactory outcome.

In any design process, it is unlikely that the first version will be approved and multiple iteration are usually needed. The designer may create several different iterations to explore different ideas and make changes based on client feedback. It can be challenging to keep track of all these files, which can result in confusion and mistakes. The larger the number of version, the higher the risk of introducing a mistake that is eventually printed.

The benefits of a digital approval tool

Many designers have turned in the past few years to digital design approval processes. With a digital process, designers can present their designs to clients in a clear and organized way, making it easier for clients to provide feedback and streamlining the overall design workflow. The digitalisation of the approval process also allows for tracking multiple versions of a design, which helps eveyone stay on the same page.

Some of the benefits of a digital approval tool are:

It can save time. Instead of going back and forth through email or in-person meetings, the digital process allows for quick and easy communication between designer and client. This can help speed up the approval process, which is essential when working on tight deadlines. It also keeps all the information in one single place. This is called: Single Source of Truth.
It can help reduce errors and misunderstandings. By presenting designs in a clear and organized way, the designer can reduce the risk of miscommunication and ensure that the client understands the design and any changes that are made. Visibility is essential in an effective communication channel.

A digital process can definitely help improve the overall quality of the design while reducing miss-communication risks and providing a streamline workflow . By allowing for easy collaboration and feedback, all stakeholders can access true and accurate information regarding the designs.

Are you using a Digital Approval System? If not, what are you waiting for?

February 16, 2023

Accountability and Authority, The Saga

Once upon a time, in a packaging company not so far away, there was a team of designers tasked with the creation and management of product packaging for their Ancestors . The designers were excited to start working on the project and put their creative and technical skills to the test. They had been trained by the master Designers and could summon the Gods of Regulatory.

The Gods of Regulatory were responsible for ensuring that the package met all necessary regulations and guidelines, Lord praise the FDA, the EMA and the local regulatory bodies. They were accountable for the content that was placed on the packaging design. And they were good at it. They had to appease the recall demons, for one mistake could cost them dearly.

After many times together in the battle field however, the Designes and the Gods of Regulatory realized that while they were accountable for the packaging, and would suffer the consequences of an attack on their impeccable recall record, they lacked the authority to make any meaningful changes on their battle process. There were simply too many stakeholders, too many hidden decision makers and way too many KPIs to fulfil.

One day, the designers submitted a proposal for an improved workflow model that they were particularly proud of. They had worked hand in hand with the regulatory team tirelessly on it for weeks and were excited to finally present it to the higher court, the Decision Makers. However, they were swiftly denied their wishes. The Decision Makers had rejected the proposal outright, without providing any concrete reasons for their decision. They simply said: It shall not be done.

The designers were frustrated, the regulatory experts were angry. They all felt like they were being held accountable for something they had no control over. If something went wrong, their heads would roll, but without the means to change course, they felt abandoned and desperate. They began to lose their faith, their motivation and engagement in the project. To make matters worse, they soon discovered that the same thing was happening to other teams in the company.

The problem wasn’t just with their process; the company’s organizational structure and old fashioned culture made it difficult for anyone to have the necessary authority to make meaningful changes. Everything had to be escalated to the high court, where decisions were made without hands-on knowledge of the actual work that had to be done.

As a result, the frustrated designers and regulatory experts decided to take matters into their own hands. They started taking actions outside of their workflow to expedite the pressing deadlines and reach their tight objectives. They were operating under the blanket of cover and darkness, very much aware of the lack of compliance and added risks. But they had no choice, it was the only way to complete the assigned tasks.

The moral of the story is that accountability without authority can be a frustrating and demotivating experience. Furthermore, when the processes in place do not match the actual job requirements, the non-authoritative stakeholders are usually forced to take action, stepping outside of the agreed models to accomplish their tasks. When key stakeholders lack the necessary authority to make changes, it can lead to a lack of engagement and creativity, and in most cases non-compliance with SOPs. In the case of packaging companies, designers and regulatory experts must work together to ensure that the design process is collaborative and efficient, but they need to have authority to make changes to the process when it no longer works.

Do you feel accountable but lack authority?

February 15, 2023

Be like water….

When it comes to corporate packaging design, transparency is key. We always insist on this aspect, specially when on-boarding new teams that are used to a more traditional approach where compartmentalisation of information is common practice.

A packaging design workflow involves multiple stakeholders, including internal teams such as marketing, product development, and design, as well as external partners such as packaging manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors. This complex network of stakeholders makes it essential to have a clear and centralised system of information sharing to prevent errors and reduce risk.

Compartmentalisation vs Transparency

Compartmentalisation is the approach of separating information into individual units or silos, which can only be accessed by certain individuals or groups. This approach can have some benefits, such as providing increased security for sensitive information or enabling clear lines of authority and responsibility. However, there are also significant risks associated with compartmentalisation that can hinder the success of a business or organisation.

One of the biggest risks of a compartmentalised approach is that it can create barriers to effective communication and collaboration. So basically some individuals might not know at one given time what is going on because information is hidden from them. This can lead to a lack of coordination, missed opportunities, and duplicated effort, which can ultimately hinder business growth and success.

On the other side of the spectrum, transparent processes can have many benefits. When stakeholders have access to the same information and there is clarity about what is going on at any time, it can help to identify and mitigate risks early on, before they become significant problems.

Transparency can also lead to greater accountability and trust.

Transparency how?

Transparency for packaging design can be achieved through the use of a centralized AMS tool, such Twona NeXT. It allows all stakeholders to have access to project-related information and updates in real-time, reducing the need for manual updates and reducing the risk of miscommunications.

In addition, transparency can also ensure the final product meets all necessary requirements and standards such as compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.

But how far do we go?

The line between transparency and compartmentalisation can however be difficult to spot. Too much of either and the process will suffer or the risk will be too high.

A good rule to thumb for packaging design processes within pharmaceutical teams follows these key aspects:

High visibility – Being able to understand the status of a project within a complex workflow creates trust, clarity and a sense of belonging by all relevant stakeholders. Keep it open, let all relevant parties see what is happening. Limiting visibility is only advisable when dealing with competing external stakeholders such as multiple design agencies.
Silo the actions – For compliance requirements, it might be needed to limit what each stakeholders can do. This is ensure everyone can fulfil their own actions while reducing the risk of mistakes. For instance, the Design team should be the only one capable of uploading new versions while approvals can only be granted by the Regulatory team.
Train everyone on the entire process – A key component of digitising a process is the training that each stakeholder needs to be part of. For larger teams, it might be wise to split the teams to focus on their part of the process. However, the entire process should be shown to all stakeholders to ensure there is clarity and a complete understanding of what is going on at every moment.
Don’t give access to external stakeholders – When collaborating with external teams such as suppliers, printers and others, it is a good practice to establish a collaboration model that is based on an on-demand basis. This means only when the core team requests something from the external members, the information can be provided or consumed, keeping access to the larger process blocked at all times. This approach reduces risks and simplifies the actions that external stakeholders need to take on your process.

In summary, defining the level of access (both views and actions) when digitising your artwork process should be considered as one of the most relevant task before you get started. Think through it, check with all stakeholders, determine which level of transparency fits your team and remember that silos are the enemy of collaboration.

February 14, 2023

5 key components of a VMP for SaaS

Artwork management in the pharmaceutical industry is a critical process that requires accuracy and precision to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and avoid errors in the packaging design that make it to the market and risk a product recall. The artwork management process is sometimes underestimated as it pertains to a non-core activity for brands and manufacturers of medicines and medical devices. However, it can be a critical aspect when facing an audit and even more when such audit is triggered by a product recall.

Multi-tenant SaaS solutions are becoming more popular with pharmaceutical companies, despite the traditional on-site installations, as they offer lower pricing points and less on-boarding hassle (lower financial costs and faster implementation). One key component that is still not fully understood is the fact that validation of on-site custom made solutions differs significantly from the validation approach required for multi-tenant SaaS applications.

The first key component is the Validation Master Plan (VMP) which outlines the validation process. Here we will discuss five key components that must be included in a VMP document for the validation of a multi-tenant SaaS Artwork Management System.

Scope and Objectives – This section needs to clearly define the scope and objectives of the validation process. Let’s dive in. The scope should outline the functionalities of the multi-tenant SaaS solution that will be validated, including any third-party integrations. It is important to define the scope with care and discuss which components need to be included. One aspect that is often overlooked when validation a SaaS application is that in many cases, there will be external services (typically micro services) and infrastructure. These, as long as they only play a servicing role, can be left out of the scope since they are controlled by a third party. The objectives should detail the specific outcomes that the validation process aims to achieve, such as ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements or minimizing the risk of errors or data loss.
Validation Strategy and Acceptance Criteria – The validation strategy should specify the validation approach, including the type of validation to be performed, such as installation qualification, operational qualification, and performance qualification. It is a good idea to include specifically which aspects of the solution will be relevant for the validation. The acceptance criteria should detail the testing methodology, including the type of testing to be performed, such as functional testing, user acceptance testing, and performance testing.
Roles and Responsibilities – This section should clearly outline the roles of the validation team, project manager, system administrator, and any other key stakeholders involved in the validation process. It should also detail the responsibilities of each team member, including their participation in the validation activities and their expected deliverables.
Testing Documentation – The documentation section should detail the testing documentation that will be used and delivered during the validation process. This section should include a list of all required testing documents, including test plans, test scripts, and test cases. It can also outline the testing schedule and the expected timeline for completing each testing activity.
Change Control – The final component of a VMP document should detail the procedures for making changes to the multi-tenant SaaS solution after the validation process is complete. It should include a list of change control forms (or other methods for documenting the required changes), detailing the requirements for documenting changes, and the process for reviewing and approving changes.

The VMP document is an essential tool that will guide you through the validation process.There is however not a single way to create it. Depending on your scope and criteria, the contents of the document can change dramatically. One critical aspect is choosing carefully which components of the application you are going to validate. For applications that rely on external infrastructure or services, specially when managed by third parties, it might prove difficult to get all the components required to validate those services. Our advice is to focus on your application and ensure that all third party infrastrucure and services are only services and do not represent a core data processing unit of your set of features.

If you get the VMP right, the rest of the validation will be much more approachable than having to come back to the VMP to make changes. Spend your time wisely, get the VMP right and your validation will be a breeze.

Want to know more key differences between a traditional VMP and a VMP for a SaaS solution, let us know!

February 13, 2023

Version 1.1….version 1.1_new….version 1.1_final

Document versioning is an essential aspect of packaging design, as it ensures the accurate tracking of changes made to the design from one iteration to the next. If you have ever received or sent an email with a subject or a filename that reads something along the lines of “Version 3_final_final”, then keep reading.

Version Control

Version control is the first aspect of document versioning in packaging design. It involves keeping track of all changes made to the design, including modifications to text, graphics, and other elements. This helps ensure that all stakeholders can identify the latest version of the design, reducing the risk of confusion and errors. When I say identify, I mean it. It is not just about downloading the right version, but about being able to uniquely identity a file by just looking at it.

By using version control (keep on reading, we get to the main course soon), the complete creation and modification process is properly tracked. This is particularly critical in highly regulated environments such as packaging design for pharmaceutical companies.

Version Numbering

Version numbering involves assigning a unique version number to each iteration of the design. It is not really relevant HOW the number is defined. Some companies prefer to use a combination of numbers and letters (Version 1 revision A, Version 1 revision B), while others prefer a more straightforward model based on integers (Version 1, Version 2). We do prefer a mixed approach with 2 versioning digits: Version.Subversion. This allows us to track easily major revisions with the first digit and feedback rounds with the second (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2). The version number NEEDS to be included in the design itself in a way that can be printed. This allows port print identification of design versions which will be critical in the event of a product recall or an audit.

By using version numbering, designers can easily identify which version of the design they are working on, reducing the risk of errors and ensuring that everyone is working with the same version. This also helps with traceability, as the version number can be used to track changes and identify the origin of any issues that may arise.

Version History

It is also important to keep a record of all changes made to the design, including who made the change, when it was made, and why it was made. The link between the version history and the design itself is made via the version number. For every version number, there has to be a historic record of changes and change requests. If you rely on emails, papers or phone calls for this…..you should read this.

Version history is critical at the Quality Control stage or the workflow when someone needs to validate that the changes made are what was expected and nothing else was introduced by mistake.

I don’t wanna

Many teams are reluctant to implement a printable version control system. This can be due to fear of being perceived as a team that needs more than one iteration to get it right. However, when multiple version 1s exist on a given system (email, shared folders, wetransfer) the risk of printing the wrong file becomes a very serious concern. No auditor in its right mind would ever pass a packaging company that does not implement version control from conception to printing.

February 13, 2023February 13, 2023

We make more rounds to avoid mistakes…the Fallacy

Have you ever heard from a client that the reason they make so many rounds or checks (and they seem to be proud) is to avoid mistakes in the final product?

I translate this as “reducing the probability of making a mistake” in the design of the packaging.

Well….let me tell you this:

THEY ARE LYING TO YOU
Anybody that can do statistical analysis

Designing and creating designs for packaging materials, specially for food, retail and pharma, is a complex process that involves multiple rounds of designing, checking and refinement. One might expect that with each additional round of design and checks, the probability of making a mistake decreases. However, this idea is counter-intuitive and exploring the math clearly shows how more rounds of changes do indeed lead to a higher probability of making ANY mistake. Let’s check it out, it is not too complex.

The Setup

Let’s say that the probability of making a mistake when implementing a design is 1/10, or in other words, 10% of the times a designer will make a mistake. It does not matter if this number is realistic or not. More experienced designers will make mistakes less often than more experienced ones. The numbers do not affect the calculation and are only used to showcase the scenario.

Let’s also say, that we want to know that is the probability of making ANY mistake when making 1 design round versus 4 rounds of changes. In the first case, for a single round, the probability of making a mistake is set at 10%. For the second case, the probability of making ANY mistake after 4 rounds, we need a bit of math. Don’t be afraid, it is simple.

The Proof

The probability of NOT making a mistake on any given design round is 1 – 1/10 = 9/10 (so 90%). The probability of NOT making a mistake on all four consecutive design rounds is (9/10)^4 = 6561/10000 (so 65%).

To find the combined probability of making ANY mistake, we subtract the probability of NOT making a mistake on all four consecutive actions from 1:

1 – (9/10)^4 = 1 – 6561/10000 = 3439/10000 = 0.3439 = 34.39%.

So the combined probability of making ANY mistake if you execute 4 consecutive design rounds is 34.39%.

That is more than 3 times the probability of making a mistake on a single round. This is key, so clients can understand that a well-defined brief and instructions improve the odds of nailing the design in the first round, which then reduces the probability of making a mistake on further design rounds.

Fell free to send this proof to your clients so they start sending better briefs (including accurate technical specs).

February 9, 2023

Are you measuring your team’s performance?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are a set of metrics that help organizations evaluate the success of their strategies and models, and monitor their progress towards achieving their goals. In the context of a design team working on packaging materials for pharmaceutical products, KPIs are particularly important as they provide valuable insights into the team’s productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. They help track your chosen workflow and allow you perform a continuous improvement programme. By tracking and analyzing KPIs, the team can identify areas for improvement, make more informed decisions, and achieve better results.

There are many KPIs that can be used to evaluate the performance of a design team. Different organizations work under different predicaments and models, which can influence the overall objetives: reduce time-to-market, reduce number of reworks, minimise risk of errors, etc. Three of the most common design KPIs are: the number of iterations required before approval, the time spent in each stage of the workflow, and the number of processed jobs per team member.

N versions before Approval

The number of iterations required before approval measure the number of times a design has to be revised before it is finally approved. A high number of iterations can indicate that there is a problem with the design process or that the team is not communicating effectively with stakeholders (if you are experiencing this, maybe you want to consider THIS article). It can also be a sign of a lack of clarity in the design brief, an unstructured design process, a lack of relevant SOPs and documentation and a wide range of other design-process maladies.

Time to move on

The time spent in each stage of the workflow, measures the amount of time the team spends on each stage of the design process, from conception to final approval. It allows you to zoom in on each step of the process and see what is really going on. This information is valuable as it helps to identify bottlenecks in the workflow. Additionally, the time spent in each stage can provide insights into the team’s capacity, allowing them to plan more effectively and allocate resources more efficiently.

What’s your workload

The number of processed jobs per team member, measures the productivity of each team member by tracking the number of jobs they complete in a given time period or in certain stages of the workflow. This information helps to identify individual strengths and weaknesses, which can then be used to optimize the allocation of tasks within the team. It can also provide insights into the workload of each team member, helping to ensure that they are not overburdened, which can lead to burnout and decreased productivity. It is important to filter this information with the right parameters, not all jobs are the same nor they take the same amount of time and resources. Filter wisely, one designer processing 3 multi language packs per day might be more efficient than another who moves around 10 simple jobs.

Kaizen baby, kaizen

KPIs are not only useful for evaluating the performance of a design team but also for setting a starting point for process improvement. By regularly tracking and analyzing KPIs, the team can identify areas for improvement and make informed decisions about how to optimize their processes and improve their performance. This is not only valuable for in-house processes, but also for evaluating external stakeholders. If your design efforts are outsouced, you can gain valuable insight into their effectiveness. If your customers are giving you a hard time with delays on approvals, hard KPI data will be valuable for a hard discussion with them about meeting deadlines.

Are you measuring your design team performance? If you said no, you need to take some time to think about it. If you said yes, the follow up question is: how exactly are you tracking the progress?

February 8, 2023

The truth and nothing but the truth

Having a single source of truth is a key aspect of effective design management, particularly when it comes to packaging materials and more so in highly regulated environments where a recall is akin to….well….the devil. When multiple stakeholders play a key role, it’s essential to have a clear and centralized system for managing the design process to ensure consistency, accuracy, and efficiency.

Centralised Source of Truth

A centralized source of truth refers to a single, authoritative repository of information or data that serves as the authoritative reference for all stakeholders involved in a project. In the context of managing design files, a centralized source of truth refers to a centralized system or platform where all design files, specifications, and other relevant information are stored, managed, and updated. This system serves as the authoritative reference for all stakeholders involved in the design process, including designers, regulatory affairs specialists, quality managers, marketers, printers, production specialists and other decision-makers.

The purpose of having a centralized source of truth is to ensure that everyone involved in the project is working with the same information and that everyone has access to the latest version of the design files. This helps eliminate confusion and miscommunication and ensures that everyone is working towards the same goal.

A centralized source of truth also makes it easier to track changes and maintain version control. All updates and changes to the design files are made in one place, making it easier to keep track of who made changes and when. This helps reduce the risk of errors and inconsistencies and ensures that everyone is working with the latest version of the design files.

Three key aspects

Here are three of the most important aspects of having a single source of truth in this context.

Collaboration and Coordination: Having a single source of truth makes it easier for all stakeholders to collaborate and coordinate on the design process. Instead of having multiple versions floating around in different folders or email attachments, everyone has access to the same information, making it easier to track changes, communicate with each other, and ensure everyone is working in sync.
Version Control: In a decentralized system, it can be challenging to keep track of which version of the design is the most recent and accurate (have you ever seen version 1, version 1_new, version 1_new_new? kind of thing). This can result in errors and inconsistencies in the final product. Having a single source of truth allows for accurate and safe version control and ensures that everyone is working with the latest information.
Traceability and Auditability: Having a centralized and well-organized system for managing the design process helps ensure that all decisions are properly documented and can be traced back to the original source. This is important for ensuring accountability and maintaining a clear record of the design process. In the event of a problem, it’s much easier to determine who made a decision and why, which can help minimize the risk of costly mistakes and protect the company from liability. If you work under highly regulated agencies (pharma, food, etc) this is not even a nice to have, but an absolute must. If you are managing files using sharepoint or local folders…..God had mercy on your soul if you ever have to undergo an audit.

Risky Business

The biggest risk of not having a single source of truth and relying on shared folders or decentralized systems is the potential for a failed design to make it to the market. This can result in negative consequences for the company, such as lost sales, decreased brand reputation, and increased costs for correcting the problem. Bonus risks and costs if you are dealing with a pharmaceutical product that can kill a patient. Having a centralized and well-organized system in place helps minimize this risk by ensuring that everyone is working with the same information and that the design process is properly documented and auditable.

If you are still working with Excel files and local folders….well…..I mean…..its 2023…..you don’t have to do that anymore.

February 7, 2023

Packaging perspective correction (with your phone)

Perspective Correction Algorithm for Cell Phone Photography

Cell phone photography has become increasingly popular in industrial and business applications in recent years, with the increase in resolution, accuracy and connectivity. One of the biggest challenges with cell phone photography when applied to Quality Control is correcting the perspective of an image. This is especially important when comparing a master design file with a printed a packaging material. A perspective correction algorithm can be used to address this issue.

The perspective correction algorithm is a software-based solution that adjusts the perspective of an image to make it look as though it was taken from a straight-on angle (thus, correcting the perspective distortion). This is achieved by identifying key points in the image, such as the corners or the edges of a packaging material, and adjusting the image to align these points. The process follows a set of determined steps:

Extract key points on both the design and the photo
Match those points to identify corredpondance
Calculate the required transformation
Modify the photography according to the calculated parameters to obtain a corrected image

The use of a perspective correction algorithm is especially important when overlaying a cell phone photo on a packaging design. This can be particularly useful when comparing a master design file (the artwork) with a photography taken with a cellphone of the printed material before it goes into full production. Being able to identify wether the approved master artwork corresponds exactly with the printed material helps reduce (or even eliminate) the risk of printing a packaging material from an un-approved or modified version. This sometimes happens when a stakeholder takes the liberty to modify an artwork for technical reasons and by mistake, something else goes amiss.

Content-based quality checks on printed packaging are crucial to avoid product recalls.
Every Quality Person in the world

There are industrial applications that involve in-line high resolution cameras to compare printed materials with master files. However, they are usually applied for Quality Control on already approved files. Therefore, being able to check before giving the green light for production on a print proof file has tremendous value, specially for highly regulated environments.

If you want to know more about how the perspective correction algorithm works, don’t hesitate to get in touch and we will be happy to chat with you. In the meantime, just to prove this is possible and valuable, you can see how the algorithm works with a really difficult case.