Letter to the Editor
Mark-in systems: Another view
To the Editor:
Having been involved with the Polymark
Laundry Identification System since 1957, I read Don Desrosiers
article in your June issue, “Thinking about mark-in systems,” with great interest.
As usual, Don wrote an excellent article
and, to a laundry owner, probably a seemingly, factual,
objective comparative analysis of “mark-in” methods
in use today.
However, as Don started out, he said he
was reluctant to write a 2,000 word commercial describing his
product that is about mark-in, assembly of shirts and
management. Furthermore, he said “he was not going to
come out and tell which system is best, frankly, you will have
no problem drawing that conclusion.” Possibly Don was
subliminally swayed.
Although Don did have many good points,
his chart presented incomplete and inaccurate information which
can result in misleading conclusions for your readership.
Frankly, his comparative chart presented
an inaccurate point valued rating method. Basic management
procedures use a standard rating description and a constant
fixed value.
For example: very poor-1, poor-2, good-3,
very good-4, excellent-5. Using inconsistent words —
“difficult, fairly easy, tedious, unlikely, fair to
poor” — all cloud the issue and cause confusion.
In his article Don says, “a key
element is absent in the chart.” This is true, he
excluded an extremely important element — sorting and
assembly. Let’s think about that for a minute. If a key
element is missing in a comparative analysis, can a reader get
an accurate picture? Like a “selling gimmick,”
smoke and mirrors can lead you in wrong directions.
Using Don’s chart, I would like to
present a comparative analysis, using standard ratings with
fixed values, including the missing “key element”
— sorting and assembly. Although all manual tagging is
different, they are all similar to the Tailwind System. To
simplify the chart I show a comparison between Polymark and
Tailwind only.
|
| ||
Actually the three headings, “Tag readability,” “Printing quality,” and “Lot distinguishability” can come under one heading. However, there are two factors that can affect these using the Polymark machine. The age of the machine is a factor (many Polymark machines are still operating after over 40 years of operation, neglect and abuse. Very possibly, print wheels could be worn or damaged which could result in a poor mark) and the other factor is a simple turn of a knob to apply more pressure on the ink ribbon, increasing the density of the mark. That’s a management responsibility. Just like any shirt unit, if you don’t pad properly you don’t get a quality shirt.
Taking these factors into consideration, I
have upgraded the poor and fair ratings to good and very good.
I have also downgraded Tailwind “Tag readability”
from excellent to very good, as often, the tag, not being
sealed flat, will fold over and require straightening before it
can be read.
I credit Don stating that the Polymark
15-order lot system has two important advantages —
control, and the fact it is impossible to transpose a number.
There is a third very important advantage
that Don missed. A 15-order lot system enables the body press
operator on the shirt unit to sort directly from the shirt unit
into a permanently numbered (1 to 15) rolling rack called a
Poly-Trolly (it rolls on your slick rail), with no loss in
pressing productivity.
Here are the advantages: Eliminate the
separate job of arranging and hanging tickets and sorting; and
get more space on the production floor (no sorting area
needed). By sorting into the Poly-Trolly, with permanently
numbered sections, the operator quickly gets digital
recognition and sorting becomes an extremely accurate automatic
action. I like to compare the accuracy to your foot going to
the brake pedal when driving a car — no thought is
involved and it’s an automatic action.
If space is limited at the shirt unit,
using the Polymark System, sorting can be done at the
inspection stage using the Poly-Trolly.
Regardless of which buttonhole tag is
used, it is a manual procedure with various physical elements
to complete the job. It is fatiguing and labor-intensive.
Weekly volume is directly related to staff requirements. High
volume requires additional staff.
With the Polymark System, the machine
automatically cuts, prints and heat seals the tag to the shirt
(or wash pants) in 3.5 seconds. During the machine’s
cycle, the machine holds the shirt and the operator has two
hands to turn the pocket and check buttons.
The fixed cycle of the machine sets the
pace for the operator. This factor, and the elimination of the
manual procedures, resulst in reducing operator fatigue and
maximizing the operators productivity. One operator using
Polymark often does the job of two or more tagging manually.
Comparing production using a manual tagging method to the
automatic Polymark System is like comparing production of a
hand iron to a cabinet shirt unit.
Talking about history, in addition to the
now obsolete Tag-o-lectric there were many more methods of
“marking-in” that are no longer in use. The
National Black Ink machine, which used live ink to apply a
permanent mark using names or codes to identify
customers’ articles was once popular.
A permanent mark was often objected to by
the customer and National subsequently developed an
“invisible ink” called “fantom-fast.”
This was only visible using blacklight in darkened areas. The
sorting and assembly areas in the laundry were tented to
exclude any light for the blacklight to effectively show the
mark. This method wasn’t too popular and became
ineffective when brighteners were added to formulas making the
marks unreadable.
Back in the late 1950s and 1960s, many
laundries switched from their permanent black ink marking to
Polymark. Testimonials from plant owners who upgraded from
black ink to the temporary Polymark System stated their
marking-in production and speed of sorting dramatically reduced
their cost of labor and claims. Also, training time was
substantially reduced.
Furthermore, many of the everyday problems
were eliminated by bringing excellent control to the production
floor. It is interesting to note that Don indicated writing
names or codes in the collar (I presume “writing”
is manual with a pen and is much slower than a machine) as
excellent 5, and rated Polymark as very good 4. Polymark was
always proven to be faster than permanent black ink.
There were other methods that phased out
over time, Pin and Net, key tag, washable pencil, protecto-clip
and others. Many upgraded to the Polymark System. During the
many years of operation, Polymark has proven to be a simple,
dependable identification system and has earned a reputation by
many owners as “The Finest in Laundry
Identification.”
Let your readers review the revised chart
to determine which system is best.
Milton B. Heilweil, president
MBH Enterprises
Chester, NY
Milton B. Heilweil, a graduate of NYU
University, has been involved with Polymark since
1957. He has visited laundries and attended laundry trade shows
throughout the U.S. and Great Britain. With his knowledge
regarding laundry identification systems, work flow, scheduling
and management, in conjunction with the Polymark System, he has
helped many plant owners improve their bottom-line profit to
earn the increased profit they deserve. He developed the MBH Rope-Tie, a
product to eliminate shake-out of shirts. Milt Heilweil can be
reached at his toll free number, (888) 765-6275, or by e-mail
at m.heilweil@att.net.
 |
