MTAC 114 – Package Services Subgroup

DATE:

Friday, June 1, 2007

ROLL CALL (Present = ):

USPS / Industry
 / John Gullo, Package Services
USPS Co-Chair /  / Tom Underkoffler, Medco Health Solutions, Industry Co-Chair
 / Deb Whetzel, Package Services /  / Ken Richardson, OCA
 / Fletcher Heard, Product Tracking /  / Michael Williams, OCA
 / Jim Hess, Service Performance / Carol Kliewer, Clarke-American
Krista Finazzo, BSN / Shelly Dreifuss, OCA
Susan Hawes, Operational Requirements / Thomas Sellin, King Solutions
Dan Leonard, Delivery /  / Wendy Smith, PCH
Jeff Williamson, Network Development / Bill Worth, Siemens
Roland Smith, Network Operations / W.K. Chan, WIT
Bob Galaher, Business Mail Acceptance /  / Marjann Caldwell, Quebecor
Susan Redman, PostalOne! /  / Bill Frey, Accenture
John Bafford, BSN / Kathleen Kannler, PRC
 / Jeff Lewis, Strategic Planning /  / Scott Klinkerfues, Cornerstone Logistics
 / Kurt Kramer, Network Development /  / David Plemons, Cornerstone Logistics
 / Tim Gribbens /  / Richard Porras, Newgistics
 / Tena Hullinger /  / Roger Franco, Newgistics
 / Aaron Horowitz, Cosmetique
James Sebastian III, Harland
 / Pam Thompson, PRC
John Kada, Lockheed Martin
 / Kathy Siviter, PostCom
David Lynch, SP Express
Sander Glick, PSA
 / Jim Callow, OCA

AGENDA:

  1. Review all draft proposals:
  2. Updated Package Services proposal to be submitted by Pete Grottini;
  3. Standard Mail proposal to be submitted by Wendy Smith;
  4. Updated Merchandise Return Service proposal to be submitted Richard Porras;
  5. Review Delivery Confirmation proposal previously submitted by Shelly Dreifuss.
  6. Discuss timelines to finalize documents;
  7. Identify outstanding issues needing clarification;
  8. Determine schedule for next meeting/telecon.

DISCUSSION:

New Co-Chair

Tom Underkoffler volunteered to co-chair the Package Services sub-group, replacing Pete Grottini. Due to changes brought about by the purchase of Bookspan, Pete is no longer able to continue as co-chair.

Package Services & Standard Mail Parcels Proposal

Wendy Smith presented a proposal she co-authored with Tom Underkoffler which would combine the service standards for both Package Services and Standard Mail parcels. It would also propose separate standards for parcels entered at destination bulk mail centers, sectional center facilities, and destination delivery units.

During discussions, it was identified that the proposal needed to include Parcel Post and Library Mail. Consistency was again echoed as being very critical in relation to the service standards established.

The service standard proposal discussed on the telecon recommends one set of service standards for both Standard Mail and Package Services parcels. The proposal, shown in the table below, wouldprovide separate standards based on whether the mail was origin or destination entered mail.

Entry Point / Days to Delivery
Destination / DDU / 1
DSCF / 2
DBMC* / 3
Origin / Zone 1 / 3
Zone 2 / 4
Zone 3 / 5
Zone 4 / 6
Zone5 / 7
Zone 6 / 8
Zone 7 / 9
Zone 8 / 10
* / The proposal would allow for a variation in the DBMC standards where the current service standard for a BMC is more than 3 days.

The service standards for both classes (Standard Mail and Package Services) entered at origin would use the current Standard Mail criteria of zone from origin ZIP to destination ZIP +2 days (e.g., for mail to a zone 5 destination, the standard is (5 + 2 = 7 days). This recommendation pushes back Package Service’s parcel standards from 2-9 days to 3-10 days. The balance is this format will allow for more consistency in meeting the delivery standards. Additionally, new standards for destination entered parcels provide mailers with upgraded service standards. The creation of an ASF service standard was also discussed. Finally, the proposal included an expectation that the service standards would be attained 98% of the time.

It was questioned whether Standard Mail and Package Service’s parcels are all processed the same way. The USPS stated they may or may not be, however, if one of the products had to be deferred, it would be the Standard mail parcels.

Jeff Lewis shared RPW data from 2006 which showed 50% of parcels are entered at origin, with close to 50% of the origin volume coming from Standard Mail parcels. This is one of the reasons the proposal was based on the current service standards for Standard Mail.

Cornerstone questioned if beyond zone 3 the standard should be zone +1 day instead of zone +2 for origin entered pieces, but the USPS said that the proposed standards look closer to what the USPS actually can deliver. Cornerstone further commented that if the proposed destination entry service standards could be met, they would be okay with the proposed origin entered standards. They also reiterated how crucial consistency of delivery was.

Kathy Siviter asked the USPS to compare the proposal to each group of mail today. Though they may not have a perfect way to compare the data they agreed to give the group feedback in general. Tom Underkoffler offered to help with the analysis. John Gullo will work with Tom to develop the analysis.

Non Continental US Locations

It was discussed and agreed service standards to and from non continental US locations would be addressed as a separate issue. It was recommended for analysis at a later date or for inclusion in the first review after the standards are implemented. The current standards will be followed until an analysis can be done. The USPS and industry were asked to submit any data they have on it. Jeff Williamson’s group is in the process of gathering USPS data.

Retail Parcel Post

The USPS was asked to compare its Parcel Post data against the proposed standards to see what the % delivered on time would become. The USPS stated that they don’t have a “what if” database but can and will look at it in a general way. They didn’t think 1 day would make much of a difference in the performance %. They believe substantial changes need to be made in the manner in which they handle these parcels for a substantial improvement to be realized.

The group will propose that all parcels including Parcel Post have the same service standard for origin based pieces.

Delivery Standards for Entire Workgroup

The original standards proposal written by Pete Grottini was reviewed and it was determined that it no longer applies. The proposal submitted by Wendy Smith will serve both Standard Mail parcels and Package Services.

Merchandise Return Service (MRS)

Richard Porras gave an overview of his MRSproposal. The discussion was based on developing a measurement not about a delivery standard, but targeted at the service itself. The delivery standard could be a footnote but should be determined by the class of mail it is applied to. The accounting/postage due operation is the only thing that should be measured and what should be focused on in the proposal.

Some examples discussed were how long it took from when the product arrived at the postage due unit of the Permit Holder. Should the time period be measured in days, hours, and or percentage available at these time increments?

It was suggested by Kathy Siviter to modify the proposal similar to the Delivery Confirmation proposal penned by Jim Callow identifying specific features of the service which could be measured. Richard agreed to rewrite the proposal to identify the types of activities to be measured and resubmit for review by the group.

Delivery Confirmation

Jim Callow presented a revised proposal for Delivery Confirmation based on feedback he received from the original document. The proposal focuses on the delivery of information.

  1. Delivery Scan Rate Service Standard

The USPS current goal is 99.1%, which should remain the standard. But, the most important scan is the final disposition scan and the number of event scans the carrier has are limited. The final disposition scans identified in the proposal are:

  • Delivered;
  • Dead Letter;
  • Picked Up By Agent;
  • Return-To-Sender.

All others scans are stored in the USPS database, but would not be included in the scan rate service standard calculation. The USPS needs to confirm the events mentioned above as the only final disposition scans. The “refused” event was discussed and determined not to be a final disposition event as it should be followed by a subsequent event stating what action was taken.

  1. Inquiry Wait Time Service Standard

The time elapsed between entering the data and its receipt or availability on the web. It was suggested the response time should be 2 seconds, measured by the USPS network, not to be influenced by network or connection speeds outside of the USPS control. Kathy Sivitersuggested Jim review the Confirm standards, as an example of how to measure access of data through FTP.

  1. Additional Service Standards – Scan Data Processing Time

USPS employees use hand-held scanners to capture information from mail pieces. After completing scanning tasks, they dock their scanner to upload the information to the USPS product tracking system database. This information is then made available via the Internet. Develop a standard to measure how long it takes to post data on the website.

Bulk Parcel Return Service

John Gullo gave a very high level overview of Bulk Parcel Return Service. Aaron Horowitz from Cosmetique is a user of the service and has agreed to discuss the service further in-depth at the next telecon and prepare a proposal on measuring the service.

Schedule Next Meeting

The next telecon has been scheduled for June 15 from 9-10:30 a.m. We plan to review the special services proposals resubmitted prior to the date.

There will also be a face-to-face meeting in Washington, D.C. on July 10 from 3-6 p.m. The full meeting of the Service Performance Standards Workgroup will be held the following day in WashingtonD.C. on July 11. More details on these meetings are forthcoming.

ACTION ITEMS & NEXT MEETING:

  1. USPS will analyze and report on how proposal measures against current standards.
  2. Discuss addition of an ASFservice standard.
  3. PSA has agreed to collect service data from its members. Tom Underkoffler will follow up with Pierce Meyers from PSA.
  4. Aaron Horowitz will write up the Bulk Parcel Return Service proposal and a description of the service.
  5. Richard Porras will rewrite the Merchandise Return Service proposal based on recommendations from the subgroup discussion.
  6. The USPS needs to confirm which Delivery Confirmation scan events are considered finalization events.
  7. Pam Kalvaitisfrom Allstate has agreed to work with Jim Callow from the PRC to add standards for Signature Confirmation to the Delivery Confirmation proposal..

************************************************************************

1 of 5