Workgroup

1
Workgroup 94Service Performance Reporting
Process Standardization MTAC Meeting
Presentation

• August 17, 2005

2
Abbreviated Issue Statement

• The mailing industry creates many different
  types of service data and service performance
  reports. These reports are not standardized
  across the mailing industry, mail types, or mail
  shapes. Often these reports lack data that is
  actionable by the Postal Service to improve
  performance.

3
Work Group 94 Desired Results

• Criteria, guidelines, and standardized elements
  for mailer generated reports would be developed.
  When followed, service reports would result in
  actionable data for USPS operations managers to
  improve service performance.
• A standardized process for sharing service
  performance reports would be developed. This
  process would be centered around the BSN, and
  involve operations management
• Evaluate the potential for a centralized
  clearing house for customer provided service
  performance reports. This clearing house would
  allow central and common access to service
  reports, probably in the forma of a web-site.
• Address Industry concerns with Confirm
  Certification process.

4
Work Group Kick-off Meeting Held August 2-3

• Industry and Postal Service discussion around
  four questions
• What data do you have that measures service
  performance?
• How valid/representative is your service
  measurement process?
• How do you share your service results with the
  USPS?
• What issues or concerns do you have relative to
  service reporting effectiveness?

5
What data do you have that measures service
performance?

• Source of data
• Confirm
• Delivery Confirmation
• Seeds by Phone or Internet
• Complaints from consumers
• Low or no sales/response
• Manifest information
• Frequency of data collection.
• Daily, weekly, monthly lots and lots
• Segmentation of data made at the district or
  3-digit
• More developed systems have robust data reporting
• Seeds, consumer complaints, etc. less specific

6
How valid/representative is your service
measurement process?

• Statistical validity
• Range from highly validity to low validity, e.g.
  complaints
• Aggregate data may provide highly valid data
• Seeding vs. regular mailings
• Varies
• Frequency
• Varies
• Determination of start and stop the clock
• Use Confirm start and stop
• DSAS, FAST
• Phone and Internet for receipt

7
How do you share your service results with the
USPS?

• BSN
• USPS Transportation
• AMF
• SCF
• BMC
• Districts
• USPS Headquarters
• Anyone that will listen!

8
What issues or concerns do you have relative to
service reporting effectiveness?

• Confirm shared reports have limited availability
• Certification (Unique Planetcode(s) per
  drop/mailing)
• Start of clock/EMD
• Stop the clock
• Delay in receiving data
• USPS needs to be proactive
• Aggregate data
• Exception reports
• Frequent and timely review
• Validation of seed process
• Need standard problem analysis methodology
• PostalOne! Transportation data not available
• Work off of trends

9
What issues or concerns (Contd)

• Lack of data on Carrier Route bundles
• Measurement system visibility
• USPS equipment failures and facility closures
  notification
• BSN
• Closed vs. resolved
• Many different reports and conflicting data

10
Next Steps

• Refer issues to sponsors for scope clarification
  or assignment to another workgroup
• Certification (Unique Planetcode(s) per
  drop/mailing)
• Start of clock/EMD
• Carrier Route bundles tracking
• 4CB replace Postnet and Planetcode or optional?
• Surface visibility integration
• Finalize issue statement
• Identify critical report elements criteria for
  work group review
• Schedule next meeting (September?)

11
Work Group 94

• Questions?