Find the weak link in your color workflow.

A quick diagnostic for print teams who need clearer decisions, better consistency, and fewer workflow surprises.

Built for teams dealing with calibration drift, proofing issues, profile confusion, workflow gaps, and inconsistent output.

Outputs you’ll receive

A concise diagnosis of weakness, risk, and next‑step clarity in under ten minutes.

Proof doesn’t match output
Color drifts over time
Devices don’t match each other
Too much rework and too many exceptions

How it works

1. Answer a few questions

Get a fast picture of how your workflow is performing across calibration, profiling, proofing, process, and visibility.

2. See what needs attention

We highlight likely risk areas and where your process is strongest or weakest.

3. Get next steps

Receive a practical action plan and the option to get expert help.

Ready to see where your workflow is slipping?

Step 1 of 8

ColorWorkflow Audit

This short assessment looks at the five areas that most often drive inconsistency in print production:

• Calibration discipline • Profile control • Proofing process • Workflow maturity • Visibility and accountability

What best describes you?

What are you trying to solve?

Calibration discipline

How consistently your devices are checked, recalibrated, and kept within control.

How often are production devices calibrated?

Who is responsible for calibration?

Are calibration events documented?

Do operators get prompted when calibration is due?

When a device falls out of tolerance, what happens?

Profile and color-management control

How profiles are created, deployed, and governed across devices and shifts.

How are profiles managed today?

How often are profiles reviewed or refreshed?

Are the same profiles used consistently across similar devices/workflows?

Do you know who created the current active profiles and when?

Are profile choices tied to defined media/press conditions?

Proofing and consistency process

How consistently proofs align with production output and hold up over time.

What best describes your proofing process?

How often does proof not match final output closely enough?

Are tolerances or pass/fail expectations defined?

How are approvals handled?

When a consistency issue appears, can you isolate whether it came from proofing, calibration, profile use, or workflow setup?

Workflow and job-submission maturity

How structured intake, handoffs, and production controls are.

How standardized is job intake?

How often do file/setup issues cause delays or rework?

Are repetitive prepress or routing steps automated?

How well documented is the workflow from submission to output?

When jobs fail, is root cause usually obvious?

Visibility and accountability

How visibility and ownership support reliable, repeatable output.

Can you see the status of devices, proofing, and key workflow steps in one place?

Can you compare consistency/performance across devices or sites?

Is there a history of issues, failures, or corrective actions?

If output quality drifts, how quickly do you know?

Do you know which issues are costing the most time or rework?

Your workflow score: 0 / 100

Controlled in spots, but still too dependent on workarounds.

Your results suggest some useful structure is in place, but gaps in ownership, standardization, or visibility are still making consistency harder than it should be.

Category breakdown

Top 3 likely risk areas

1. Calibration is not governed tightly enough 2. Profile ownership and usage may be inconsistent 3. Workflow exceptions are not visible early enough

30‑day action plan

• Set a defined calibration owner and schedule • Consolidate active profiles and document approved usage • Track the most common workflow failures and their cause • Standardize proof approval where possible

Want a copy of your audit results?

Enter your email and we’ll send your summary along with recommended next steps.

Your audit is complete.

We’ll send your summary and next steps shortly.

Color and workflow, made clearer.