Managed print services should make school life easier. That is the simple promise. Fewer printer dramas, clearer costs, better reliability, and less time spent chasing toner and repairs. In my view, most schools that sign up to managed print are making a sensible decision for sensible reasons. Yet I have to be honest, managed print still goes wrong more often than it should. When it goes wrong, it rarely fails in a spectacular way. It fails quietly, through unclear expectations, awkward workflows, costs that creep up, and a service relationship that feels fine until a busy week exposes the gaps.
This article explains the most common managed print mistakes schools make and how to avoid them. It is written for school business managers, trust operations and finance teams, IT leads, senior leaders, and anyone who has responsibility for keeping printing and scanning stable, secure, and good value. The aim is not to criticise schools. The aim is to give you a practical set of things to watch for, in plain UK English, so you can select providers more confidently, manage contracts more effectively, and reduce the day to day friction that leads to waste.
What I would say from the start is that managed print works best when it is treated as a service that supports learning and administration, not as a photocopier deal. If you hold that mindset, many of the common mistakes become easier to spot and easier to prevent.
Mistake one: buying based on the device rather than the service
One of the most common mistakes is to focus heavily on the machine specification and not enough on the service model. It is understandable because devices are tangible. People can compare speed, tray capacity, colour capability, finishing options, and a long list of features. Service is harder to picture. Yet in practice, service is what determines whether printing is calm or chaotic.
A school can have an excellent device on paper and still experience constant frustration if the provider’s support process is slow, if parts availability is weak, or if engineers are not realistically available during school hours. In my experience, schools often discover this after signing, when the first serious fault occurs and the promised response time feels more like a vague ambition than a reliable commitment.
To avoid this, I suggest schools evaluate the support experience as if it is the product. Ask how calls are logged, how faults are triaged, what typical response looks like in your region, and what happens when a device fails repeatedly. In my view, the best providers talk about service calmly and clearly. They do not become defensive. They explain what is covered, what is not, and how they keep schools running when things go wrong.
Mistake two: failing to define what managed actually includes
The phrase managed print services is used broadly. Some arrangements include devices, maintenance, and toner. Others include software, reporting, secure release, and workflow support. Some include proactive monitoring. Some only respond when you log a call. Schools often assume that managed means everything is covered, then they are surprised by charges that sit outside that assumption.
This mistake usually shows up as invoice disputes or disappointment. A school believes parts are included, but a major component is billed. A school believes toner is automatic, but deliveries require manual ordering. A school believes software is included, but licences are additional. A school believes call outs are included, but certain visits are chargeable.
I have to be honest, this is rarely caused by deliberate deception. It is usually caused by unclear scope and hurried buying. The best way to avoid it is to insist on a plain language schedule of inclusions and exclusions. If a provider cannot explain what is included without resorting to vague contract language, I would be cautious. In my view, clarity at the start prevents pain later.
Mistake three: signing up without understanding the commercial model
Managed print costs can be structured in different ways. Some use a monthly fee plus a per page charge. Some include a monthly allowance of pages with overage charges. Some have a minimum monthly volume commitment. Some separate service and finance agreements. Schools often choose based on the headline monthly amount and do not fully explore how charges change when volume changes.
This becomes a problem when a school prints more than expected during peak periods, or when colour use rises, or when the school grows and adds staff. The contract that looked affordable suddenly feels unpredictable. Or the opposite happens. The school reduces printing due to digital initiatives, but it is still paying for minimum volumes that no longer reflect reality.
To avoid this, I suggest modelling several scenarios before signing. Look at what happens if volumes rise by a meaningful percentage. Look at what happens if volumes fall. Look at what happens if colour use increases. Look at what happens if you add another device. In my view, a provider who is confident in their pricing will be willing to run these scenarios with you. A provider who resists might be relying on the school not noticing how the model behaves under stress.
Mistake four: relying on guesswork about print volumes
Schools often estimate their print volumes because they do not have consolidated data. That leads to contracts based on assumptions. When assumptions are wrong, costs and capacity become misaligned. A school might under estimate, leading to overage charges and queues. A school might over estimate, leading to paying for capacity it does not use.
I believe the simplest solution is to gather basic evidence before procurement. Meter readings from devices, even if collected manually, can give a usable picture. Service histories can reveal whether devices are overloaded. Staff feedback can highlight peak times and bottlenecks. You do not need perfect data. You need data that is better than a guess.
If a provider offers a print review, that can be helpful, but I suggest treating it as evidence gathering rather than as a sales step. The school should keep ownership of the data and should be able to use it to compare multiple options.
Mistake five: over specifying devices because staff complain about queues
Queues are real in schools. Staff need to print quickly between lessons and they get frustrated when devices are slow or busy. The common response is to buy more devices or larger devices. Sometimes that is the right answer. Often it is not.
Queues can be caused by poor placement, uneven usage, or printing behaviour that creates spikes. For example, if one device is located in a convenient area, everyone uses it even if another device is available nearby. If default settings encourage single sided printing, page volumes rise. If staff print and do not collect jobs promptly, devices spend time producing output that is not used. If devices are unreliable, staff print backups which increases demand.
Over specifying increases cost and can lock a school into unnecessary capability. To avoid it, I suggest diagnosing the cause of queues rather than treating queues as proof that the school needs high end equipment everywhere. In my view, the best managed print designs solve queues through sensible placement, balanced capacity, and controls that reduce waste, not simply through more expensive hardware.
Mistake six: under specifying, then living with constant disruption
The opposite mistake is under specifying, choosing devices that cannot handle real school volumes or that lack features needed for a smooth workflow. This often happens when budgets are under pressure and the school wants the cheapest monthly option. The school then experiences slow printing, constant jams, and staff frustration. Staff respond by buying desktop printers and cartridges, which increases cost and reduces control.
I have to be honest, this is one of the most expensive mistakes because it creates hidden spending. The school may feel it saved money on the contract, but it pays through downtime, emergency purchases, and the gradual return of unmanaged printing.
To avoid under specification, schools should be realistic about peak periods and about how printing fits into staff routines. A device that is fine on an average day may fail under termly peaks. In my view, capacity planning should reflect school life, not a smooth office model.
Mistake seven: ignoring the impact of desktop printers on managed print value
Desktop printers are often the enemy of managed print value, but not because desktop printers are evil. They appear because staff need convenience and reliability. If the managed environment does not provide those things, staff will print elsewhere. When that happens, costs become fragmented again. Cartridges are bought in emergencies. Printing becomes harder to monitor. Confidentiality can suffer because desktop printers are rarely secured in the same way as managed devices.
A common mistake is to treat managed print as a separate contract and desktop printers as harmless extras. In reality, desktop printers can undermine the entire purpose of managed print.
To avoid this, I suggest schools decide deliberately where desktop printers are justified and where they are not. Where desktop printers are needed, include them in the managed plan if possible, or at least manage consumables purchasing and usage. More importantly, improve the managed environment so staff do not feel they need desktops for basic convenience. In my view, the right goal is not banning desktop printers, it is removing the reasons they proliferate.
Mistake eight: implementing secure release poorly and creating staff resistance
Secure release printing can reduce waste and improve confidentiality by requiring staff to authenticate at the device before printing. In schools, it can be extremely valuable because sensitive documents are part of everyday life. Yet secure release can become a source of frustration if implemented badly.
Common problems include slow logins, unreliable card readers, PIN systems that staff forget, devices placed too far from teaching areas, and rules that cause queues. Staff then see secure release as an obstacle rather than as protection. They look for workarounds. They print at unsecured devices. They avoid the system and complain loudly.
I believe secure release works best when it is designed around staff reality. Authentication needs to be fast. Devices need to be placed sensibly. There needs to be a simple method for staff who forget their PIN or have card issues. Jobs should expire sensibly so the system does not fill with unclaimed printing. Staff should be told why the change helps them, not only why it helps budgets.
To avoid the mistake, pilot secure release in one area, gather feedback, and refine the setup before rolling out more widely. In my view, a gentle rollout with good support beats a sudden forced change every time.
Mistake nine: setting defaults without considering learning and accessibility
Default double sided printing, default black and white, and limits on colour can reduce waste and cost. These settings are tempting because they deliver savings quickly. The mistake is to apply them bluntly without considering how resources are used in classrooms and how pupils with additional needs are supported.
Some resources are better single sided for younger pupils, for certain SEND formats, or for tasks that involve cutting, sorting, or annotating. Some subjects genuinely benefit from colour, such as maps, diagrams, and certain accessibility adjustments. If defaults reduce resource quality or usability, staff will override them, or they will print extra pages to compensate, which defeats the purpose.
To avoid this, I suggest treating defaults as a starting point, not as a rigid rule. Set sensible defaults, then define clear and simple exceptions. Communicate those exceptions. Make it easy for staff to choose the right output when it matters, while keeping the default aligned with waste reduction.
Mistake ten: ignoring scanning workflows and staying trapped in print and scan habits
Many schools print documents, fill them in, then scan them back into systems. This print and scan habit creates paper waste and staff workload. Managed print services often include scanning capabilities and sometimes workflow support, but schools do not always use them well.
The mistake is to treat scanning as a secondary feature and never improve the workflow. Staff then keep printing and scanning in a loop, and paper reduction stalls.
To avoid this, identify a few admin processes that can be improved with better scanning or with digital forms. For example, certain internal approvals, supplier invoices, or record keeping processes can often be streamlined. The aim is not to digitise everything overnight. It is to remove the most pointless print and scan loops first.
In my view, scanning improvements need training and clarity. Staff need to know where scans go, how to retrieve them, and how to avoid mis filing. If scanning is confusing, staff will print as a safety net, which creates more waste.
Mistake eleven: failing to plan device placement around confidentiality
Schools sometimes place devices purely for convenience. A printer in a corridor might be easy to access, but it can become a confidentiality risk. Sensitive documents can be printed and left in trays where pupils or visitors might see them. Staff might rush and leave papers behind. Devices with scanning functions might be used for sensitive documents in public areas.
The mistake is to treat placement as an estates issue rather than as a safeguarding and data protection issue. In my view, printer placement is part of information security.
To avoid this, map where confidential printing happens and ensure there is a suitable device in a controlled location for those workflows. If secure release is used, confidentiality improves, but placement still matters because paper can still be left behind after release. The goal is to align placement with both convenience and confidentiality.
Mistake twelve: neglecting printer security as part of the network
Printers are networked devices. They can be overlooked in cyber security planning. The mistake is to install devices, connect them to the network, and then forget them. If default admin credentials remain, if firmware updates are not applied, if unnecessary services are enabled, or if devices are placed on an open network segment, risk rises.
This may feel distant from budget control, but I have to be honest, security incidents are expensive in time and disruption even when direct financial penalties are not involved. A compromised device can also create operational instability.
To avoid this mistake, involve IT in managed print procurement and deployment. Ensure devices are configured securely, admin access is controlled, and firmware is updated. Ensure remote management is understood and restricted. In my view, a managed print provider should be able to explain how they support secure configuration in plain language.
Mistake thirteen: not clarifying what happens to data when devices are replaced
Printers can retain data such as logs, address books, and sometimes job information depending on configuration. When devices are replaced or swapped, the school needs confidence that data is handled properly. The mistake is assuming that because the provider collects the device, data security is automatically taken care of.
To avoid this, schools should ensure contracts include clear end of life handling, including secure wiping or secure destruction where appropriate, and evidence that it has been done. Keep a record of device serial numbers and collection dates. Store decommissioned devices securely until collection. I suggest treating printer replacement like laptop replacement, with similar seriousness.
In my view, this is not about being alarmist. It is about being responsible with pupil and staff information.
Mistake fourteen: choosing a contract term that does not match school reality
Long contracts can look attractive because they reduce monthly cost and spread spending. The mistake is choosing a term length that reduces flexibility too much. Schools change. Trusts expand. Sites shift. Digital initiatives reduce printing. A contract that cannot adapt becomes frustrating.
Short contracts can also be a mistake if they lead to frequent change and disruption. The right answer depends on stability and on how confident the school is in its future needs.
To avoid this, I suggest aligning term length to realistic planning horizons and ensuring the contract includes clear mechanisms to adjust devices and volumes. Understand what happens if a school joins or leaves a trust structure. Understand early termination implications. In my view, flexibility is part of value for money.
Mistake fifteen: failing to separate finance agreement terms from service terms
Many managed print arrangements involve a finance agreement for the devices and a service agreement for maintenance and consumables. Schools sometimes assume these are one and the same. The mistake is discovering later that ending one does not end the other.
To avoid this, schools should ask whether the finance and service are separate, and if so, how each can be changed or ended. Ensure the school understands the commitment and the responsibilities under each. In my view, it is better to feel slightly cautious at the contract stage than to feel trapped later.
Mistake sixteen: weak implementation planning and a rushed changeover
Even a good contract can fail if implementation is rushed. Devices arrive, are installed quickly, and staff are expected to adapt instantly. Scan destinations break. Authentication is inconsistent. Drivers are not standardised. Staff do not know how to use new features. Problems appear, and confidence falls. Then printing habits fragment again and the school loses control.
To avoid this, schools should insist on an implementation plan that covers installation, testing, training, and communication. It should include a period of bedding in support, where issues are handled quickly and calmly. It should include planning for old device removal and data handling. In my view, implementation is where managed print is either earned or wasted.
Mistake seventeen: underestimating the importance of staff training and user experience
Teachers and support staff are not being difficult when they complain about printing. They are reacting to friction in a busy day. The mistake is to treat training as optional, or to assume staff will work it out.
A provider that offers quick guides, short training sessions, and simple support materials can reduce friction significantly. It is not about turning staff into print experts. It is about making the basics intuitive and making common tasks easy, such as scanning to the right place, releasing secure jobs, and choosing the correct tray for certain paper types.
To avoid this, include training expectations in the service plan. Make sure training fits school time constraints. Provide simple reference materials. In my view, good training reduces waste because it reduces mistakes and reprints.
Mistake eighteen: ignoring reporting, then wondering why costs do not improve
Managed print often includes reporting on usage, but schools do not always use it. The mistake is expecting savings without acting on the information. Reporting is only valuable when it leads to decisions, such as adjusting device placement, setting sensible defaults, reducing colour use where it adds no value, or targeting waste hot spots.
To avoid this, create a simple routine for reviewing reports, perhaps termly. Focus on a few questions. Which devices are overloaded. Which are underused. Where is colour use high. Are there signs of abandoned printing. What is driving peaks. Use these insights to make small changes. In my opinion, small changes compound over time and deliver real budget control without drama.
Mistake nineteen: not holding providers accountable for recurring faults
Some devices become repeat offenders. They jam constantly, mis feed, or throw error codes. Schools sometimes accept this as normal, logging repeated calls without escalation. The mistake is allowing recurring faults to become a permanent feature of the school day.
To avoid this, schools should track fault frequency and insist on escalation. A good provider should have a process for repeated faults, including deeper diagnosis or replacement where appropriate. In my view, this is not unreasonable. A school is paying for a managed service, not for a cycle of repeated inconvenience.
Mistake twenty: treating paper waste reduction as a strict rule rather than a learning focused strategy
Schools often want to reduce waste quickly, and strict rules can seem appealing. The mistake is applying rules that make learning harder, which creates staff resistance and workarounds.
To avoid this, link waste reduction to learning quality and workload reduction. Focus on removing pointless printing, not on depriving pupils of useful resources. Protect accessibility adjustments. Use defaults and secure release to reduce waste without relying on constant reminders. In my view, waste reduction should feel like good housekeeping, not like a restriction.
Mistake twenty one: allowing exceptions to swallow the whole system
The opposite risk is that the school introduces controls, but then makes so many exceptions that nothing changes. Colour restrictions are waived constantly. Secure release is bypassed. Desktop printers remain unmanaged. Over time, the managed environment becomes a polite suggestion rather than a system.
To avoid this, schools should define a small number of sensible exceptions and keep them consistent. Review exceptions termly. If an exception is needed frequently, it may indicate that the core setup needs adjustment. In my view, a managed print environment should be flexible, but not so flexible that it becomes meaningless.
Mistake twenty two: not planning for peak periods and exam season stress
Printer failures and slowdowns are more disruptive during exam periods, reporting windows, and end of term peaks. The mistake is to treat capacity planning as an average day problem. Schools then experience crisis printing at the worst times.
To avoid this, build peak periods into planning. Ensure key devices are well maintained before peaks. Ensure consumables stock and delivery processes are stable. Ensure backup options exist. If secure release and follow me printing are used, ensure staff know how to use them under pressure.
In my view, peak planning is one of the easiest ways to reduce emergencies, and emergencies are where budgets leak.
Mistake twenty three: failing to keep a simple audit trail for procurement and decisions
Schools operate in a public accountability environment. Even when formal tendering is not required, schools still need to demonstrate value for money and fair decision making. The mistake is relying on informal discussions and then struggling to evidence why a provider was chosen, why certain terms were accepted, and how the school assessed risk.
To avoid this, keep simple records. Capture requirements, quotes, evaluation notes, and approval steps. Document why the chosen option offers best value. In my view, an audit trail is not bureaucracy for its own sake. It is protection for the school business manager and leadership team.
Mistake twenty four: viewing managed print as finished once the contract is signed
Signing a contract is the start, not the finish. The mistake is thinking the provider will manage everything automatically. Managed print still needs school side ownership. Someone needs to review performance, check invoices, monitor usage trends, and raise issues early.
To avoid this, assign clear ownership. Schedule regular reviews. Use reporting. Track faults. Plan renewals early. In my view, the schools that get the best value from managed print are those that treat it like any other essential service, such as cleaning or catering, with oversight and expectations.
Pros of getting managed print right in a school
When managed print is done well, schools see predictable costs, fewer emergencies, less staff time wasted, and a calmer operational environment. Reliability improves. Waste reduces through sensible defaults and secure release. Confidentiality strengthens because sensitive documents are less likely to be left unattended. Reporting provides a clearer view of spend, which supports budget decisions. Standardisation reduces complexity and simplifies support.
I believe one of the most valuable benefits is the reduction in background stress. Printing stops being a constant low level problem and becomes a stable utility.
Cons and constraints to acknowledge honestly
Managed print is not perfect. Contracts can be complex. Long terms can reduce flexibility. Implementation can be disruptive if handled badly. Some staff will always prefer paper and will resist changes that feel restrictive. Some schools have building constraints that limit ideal device placement. Network limitations can complicate deployment. A provider’s service quality can vary by region and by staffing.
I have to be honest, these constraints are real, but most are manageable when the school plans carefully, chooses transparently, and insists on clarity in the relationship.
A practical closing perspective: how to avoid mistakes without turning print into a full time job
What I would say, if you want a simple guiding idea, is that managed print should reduce complexity, not add it. The most common mistakes come from unclear scope, weak service evaluation, rushed implementation, and a lack of ongoing oversight. If you define what is included in plain language, model costs under realistic scenarios, involve IT for security and network fit, plan implementation properly, and review performance termly, you will avoid most of the pain that schools associate with managed print. In my view, the best managed print setup is one that quietly supports teaching and administration, keeps confidential information safe, and makes budgets more predictable, without asking school staff to become printing specialists. When it reaches that point, printing becomes what it should be, a useful tool that fades into the background rather than a daily distraction.