Recommendations to others considering GlobalVision:
One of the things that causes the most problems for companies in moving from manual proofing to using a tech solution is the cost. None of the solutions on the market are a $29.99 purchase from the store -- nor should they be. All of the systems are very competitively priced with each other. The amount of risk that a company carries using fully-manual/human process is hard to quantify for an ROI statement. But ask this question -- how much does a recall cost? That is a quantifiable cost. How much does patient harm/death cost? That number is beyond quantification. But, just calculating the number of man hours this will save in proofing alone can easily justify the ROI of this service. Especially for companies that market in multiple languages. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What problems is GlobalVision solving and how is that benefiting you?
Business problems and benefits realized are the same -- increased accuracy in quality checks of artwork preparation, reduced amount of human error in the proofreading process, and reduced amount of time in performing the quality checks. A 4-language leaflet could take upwards of 2 days to manually proofread, a 30-language IFU could take over a week. A 200-page user manual in 30 languages could take months. Using technology can cut that to 15 minutes or so. There are also so many problems that can impede getting 100% accuracy with human-only proofreading, not to mention the large risk assumed when a human reader tries to review artwork in languages with characters that are unreadable by the reviewer. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.