MTAC Mail Prep & Entry Focus Group February 18, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MTAC
Mail Prep & Entry Focus Group
February 18, 2015
MTAC
Mail Prep & Entry Focus Group
Packages Track
February 18, 2015
3
®
Packages Track
Action Items from Last Meeting
Open Discussion
Agenda
4
®
Action Items from Last Meeting Define and formalize process for communicating Presort
Reference Data (PRD) issues and sharing resolutions –
Webinar – 2/5
Utilize webinar forum to highlight resolved issues
escalate open issues and share measurements and
improvements. – Webinar – 2/5
Label list Change document published in .csv or excel for
easier manipulation –Webinar - 2/5
John Medeiros to provide file on issue with L606 mis-
shipped records at a SCF that’s within the scheme
sortation to mine and determine root cause analysis. –
John Medeiros
Action Items
5
®
Action Items from Last Meeting VP Delivery and Customer Service (Randy Stines and
Aaron Lawson) or delegate to participate in MP&E Focus
Group session for Packages - Members invited
Mailer Service Impacts website review and update - Action -
Constantly being addressed and reviewed. Most recent
storm was successful.
Follow up with VP Mail Entry & Payment Technology’s group
regarding DNDC Full Service exceptions entered at DSCF –
Capacity issue case by case basis
Action Items
6
®
Open Discussion
MTAC
Mail Prep & Entry Focus Group
First-Class Track
February 18, 2015
8
®
First-Class Track
Action Items from Last Meeting
CSA Project Update
Self-adhesive Tray Labels
Open Discussion
Agenda
9
®
Action Items from Last Meeting
Explore procedures to determine if quality controls are in
place at Plants or PO to replace tray labels. – Labels /
Pockets / reinforce SOP
Invite HQ USPS Engineering and label suppliers to next
meeting and report out on adhesive tray
labels. Presentation / demonstration – 2/18/15
After consolidation, there will be a need to revalidate 5D
scheme lists - Top / Down > Sort Programs – Presented
on webinar - 2/5/15
Action Items
10
®
Customer Supplier Agreement (CSA)
Process Lead Time Reduction
LSS Project Update
Project Leads: Nadya Ramel-Barnes, Isabel Navarro
Team: Cyndi Muldoon, Mury Salls, Steven Krejick, Sebastian
Aguiari, Sharon Harrison, Ken Penland, Kelly Lorchick, Kevin
Bray, Lance Bell, Joe Eagle, Prat Shah
Project Champion: Lauren Zalewski
February 2015
11
® CSA Project Structure
CSA Process Lead Time Reduction
Strategic A3
CSA Content Standardization
Tactical One A3
CSA Communication
Structure Tactical Two A3
CSA Operational Execution at
Mailer Tactical Four A3
Increase # of Pieces in Service
Measurement Tactical Three A3
Pending results of Tactical One A3 Estimated Completion: July 2015
In Initiation Estimated Completion: July 2015
Pending results of Tactical Two A3 Estimated Completion: August 2015
Estimated Completion: March 2015
Estimated Completion: July 2015
12
®
POTENTIAL FUTURE STATE PROCESS –
HQ CSA DESIGN, REDUCED APPROVERS
Potential Future State
HYPOTHESIS: FPY WILL INCREASE TO 95% AND APPROVAL PROCESS LEAD TIME WILL REDUCE TO 30 DAYS
Pros: Customizable, RACI Approach Cons: Managed locally. Potentially degrades system and increases overall handling cost Requires system enhancements
13
®
IMPROVEMENTS – IN PROCESS
Improve
Description Results
Pilot short term solution of reduced FAST approvers (Area/HQ only)
Median Approval Time Sept-Dec ‘14 Pilot Areas: 2 Days (12 samples). Approved 42 total but only 12 were created after Sept. 2014 Other Areas: 27 Days (11 samples)
Establish mail point of contact with Mailer + Area Transportation
Improved communication and reduction on approval cycle time
Initiate Tactical A3 ONE – Improve CSA design standardization
Establish standard business rules for CSA creation
PILOT AREAS: MEDIAN 2 DAYS
OTHER AREAS: MEDIAN 27 DAYS
HAWTHORNE
EFFECT
Pilot Results:
reduction from 8 to
2 approvers
and
from > 56 to 2 days
Next Steps: Collect more cycle time data and expand pilot by March 2015
14
®
Mailer sends pallets to USPS
Zips 001-699
Letters arrived mixed zip codes 060, 210, 750
Letters arrived mixed zip codes 060, 210, 750 Zips 700-900
Trays put on pallet per “separation” indicated on CSA
Letters sorted into trays by 3-
digit destination zip codes
Tactical A3 ONE: CSA Separation Design
Standardization
Project Lead: Isabel Navarro
Black Belt Coach: Ramel-Barnes
Project Background
CSAs separation structures are
design at the local level – no
consistency among the 322
CSAs
CSA separations are not kept
current to align with our network
Content design of some CSAs
do not maximize the benefit of
the work share agreement
(locally optimized)
64% of
CSAs with
STC
Separations
are
incorrect
32% of CSAs with
Destinating Separations sort
to an STC
Unknown proportion of
incorrect separations because
they require manual validation
15
® Improve
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN: Pilot to test
the robustness of
the business
rules
Pilot plan
presented to HQ
Manager of
Processing
Operations and
approved
Two pilot sites
selected (PSI –
Los Angeles, CA +
DST – Hartford,
CT)
Potential Risks from LL
Business RulesPotential Failure Effects Current Process Controls
R
P
N
7
Convincing the USPS plants
to participate -
standardizing the business
rules
Will go outside CSA LL
process
Refuse to participate
Effects relationship
between mailer and
local plants
Include IPS/PM on team to help
design business rules700
5
Label List is confusing and
no one can explain
palletization rationale
(decision logic)
Mail separated
incorrectly
Non-CSA mailers
Change of rules to make one
common process
Standardize palletization process
within label list structure - and
get rid of unecessary label lists
(vendor software change)
1+ year horizon
Vendor change $$
Benefit to large mailers
640
Metrics for Pilot:
% CSA variance (special cause - why?)
Commercial Service Score (USPS scores -
segregated by service standard) [trends]
Late Trips*
Workhours (local plant perception of
impact)
Before/after separatations
Quality control for accuracy of separations*
To Do items to implement pilot:
FMEA conducted by team to help mitigate
pilot risks (two w/highest RPN) Team will be tracking metrics to
quantify impact of pilot
Standard Business Rules established by the
team
Pilot Task
1Finalize LLCSA through
appropraite Dest. STC
2
Vet LLCSA with local team
(compare current CSA with
Proposal) +add transportation
3Enter LLCSA into FAST with
effective date- January 11,2015
4 Approve LLCSA in FAST
16
® Hartford DST Before - After
Hartford DST Separations Current State Hartford DST Separations Future State
Pilot State Date: January 18, 2015
Proposed Future State:
Applied business rules to design future state
Volume driven direct separations and alignment with USPS transportation network
Meet the Mailer Requirement of 23 Letter Separations
Collaborated with Area stakeholder to vet feasibility
Received agreement from Hartford Plant Manager
Reduction in working volume to 01Z: from ~2600 to 633 trays per day
17
®
Large potential
savings from
standardized business
rules across 322 CSAs
(removal of local
optimization)
Improve – Hartford DST
15%
Reduction
18
® Hartford DST Metric Tracking
01/23/201501/10/201512/30/201412/18/201412/08/201411/25/201411/14/201411/03/201410/23/201410/11/201410/01/2014
100
50
0
Start the Clock Date ON
Indiv
idual V
alu
e _X=95.1UCL=107.2
LCL=83.0
Baseline Pilot
01/21/201501/08/201512/26/201412/13/201412/02/201411/19/201411/06/201410/25/201410/14/201410/01/2014
200
100
0
State the Clock Date 2D
Indiv
idual V
alu
e
_X=63.5
UCL=189.8
LCL=-62.7
Baseline Pilot
01/21/201501/08/201512/26/201412/13/201412/02/201411/19/201411/06/201410/25/201410/14/201410/01/2014
160
80
0
Start the Clock Date 3D
Indiv
idual V
alu
e
_X=72.9
UCL=142.7
LCL=3.0
Baseline Pilot
1
1
111
1
111
11
1111
DST Hartford Overnight Service Score
DST Hartford 2 Day Service Score
DST Hartford 3 Day Service Score
19
® Los Angeles PSI Pilot
Pilot start date:
January 26, 2015
Pilot Outcome:
Identified unnecessary air separations being done
Able to reduce the number to only value-add
separations
Improved palletization to move mail to final
destination with less handlings
20
® Los Angeles PSI Metric Tracking
01/26/201501/13/201512/31/201412/18/201412/06/201411/24/201411/10/201410/25/201410/14/201410/01/2014
160
80
0
Start the Clock Date ON
Indiv
idual V
alu
e
_X=65.6
UCL=158.5
LCL=-27.4
Baseline ON Pilot
01/21/201501/08/201512/26/201412/13/201412/02/201411/19/201411/06/201410/25/201410/14/201410/01/2014
100
90
80
State the Clock Date 2D
Indiv
idual V
alu
e
_X=98.52
UCL=104.05
LCL=92.99
Baseline 2D Pilot
01/21/201501/08/201512/26/201412/13/201412/02/201411/19/201411/06/201410/25/201410/14/201410/01/2014
100
90
80
Start the Clock Date 3D
Indiv
idual V
alu
e _X=98.55UCL=101.75
LCL=95.35
Baseline 3D Pilot
111
111
111
1
1111
1
1
11
11
11
1
1
2/6/2015 4:34:02 PM; Author: NRB
LA X PSI Overnight Service Score
2/4/2015 9:46:11 AM; Author: NRB
LA X PSI 2D Service Score
2/6/2015 4:10:04 PM; Author: NRB
LA X PSI 3D Service Score
21
® Next Steps
Continue monitoring pilot sites
Expand to additional pilot sites
Conduct Kaizen to reduce the cycle time for
“HQ CSA creation” Feb 23-27
Decide on Future State approval process
Questions?
®
22
Tray Label Scanning
Issues and Plans
February 2015
®
23
Recent Tray Scanning Issues
Improvement Efforts
Adhesive Labels
®
24
Tray Scanning Issues
Mail Visibility Program Requires Tray Scans
24 Digit Barcode Tray Label = Increases Data
2012 LSS Project Indicated:
Poor Label/Barcode Read Rates ~ 85%
Reduced Read Rates on 24 Digit
Poor Scanner Reliability
Old Scanner Technology
Decreasing Read Rates
Loss of Entry Scans by Unseleevers (ATUs)
®
25
2012 Tray Read Rates / Tour
Largest HSTS Read Rate drops are on Tours 2 and 3
HSTS National Read Rate per Tour
88%
89%
90%
91%
92%
93%
94%
3/22
3/29 4/
54/
124/
194/
26 5/3
5/10
5/17
5/24
5/31 6/
76/
146/
216/
28 7/5
7/12
7/19
7/26 8/
2
T3
T2
T1
®
26
2012 Tray Volumes
Over 800 Million Tray Scans Annually
RCS 1,429,524
HSTS 3,036,257
ATU 3,709,065
LCTS 8,496,025
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
Trays Processed per Week
Avera
ge T
rays p
er
Week
Tray Volumes
®
27
2012 Tray Rejects
Over 125 Million Tray Scan Rejects Annually (15.6%)
RCS 69,233 HSTS 274,109
ATU 1,106,947
LCTS 1,093,846
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
No-Reads per Week
Avera
ge T
rays p
er
We
ek
No-Read Tray Volumes
®
28
Tray Scanning Improvements
2013 Universal Scanner Solution Developed Multiple Tray Platforms – LCTS, HCTS, HSUS….
Commonality of Spares and Training
Camera (Vs Scanner) Technology
Improve Read Rates ~ 8%
Reduced Maintenance
Improved Reliability
Scan Rate and Equipment Monitoring
Additional Reporting Systems (MSWYB)
* Improved Reporting/Visibility *
®
29
Improvement Schedule
Completed:
Robotic Systems (RCS) Spring ‘14
High Speed Tray Sorters (HSTS) Fall ‘14
Low Cost Tray Sorters (LCTS) Fall ‘14
In Progress:
Unsleevers (ATU) March ‘15
Tray Systems Fall ‘15/ Spring ‘16
Airline Systems Fall ‘15/ Spring ‘16
®
30
Improvement Results
®
31
Continuing Improvement
LSS Project to Measure All Issues
Why Not 99% on All Platforms
Develop Improvement Plans
Potential Issues:
Lost Labels
Label Holder Interference or Damage
Out of Spec. Barcodes (Squeezed 24 Digit)
Poorly Printed or Smudged Barcodes
Miss-placed Labels
Reject Chutes Full
®
32
Adhesive Labels
Benefits:
New Technologies
Easier Application
Reduced Manual Cost
No Label Holder Interference
Improved Label Quality
Improved Label Barcode Quality
®
33
Adhesive Labels
Issues/Concerns:
Accurate Label Position – USPS Trays
Over Labeling Bleed Through
Reliability of Adhesives
Clean Label Removal – USPS & Mailers
Label Removal Costs
Not Universal: Savings for Adhesive Users =
Removal Costs for Traditional
Maintenance of Labeling Equipment - Quality
Label & Barcode Quality *Cannot Go Backwards*
®
34
Adhesive Labels Testing
Initial Adhesive Label Tests Showed Promise
Adhesive Label Identified
Reliable Adhesive at Normal Temperatures
Minimal Holder Damage on Removal
Some Residue
Live Testing to Prove Feasibility (or not)
End-to-End Controlled Test
Identify Issues and Solutions
Work to Qualification Standards
®
35
Adhesive Labels Testing
Determine Costs of Label Removal
Clean Removal
Damage to Label Holders/Cost to Correct
Double Label Errors
Evaluate End-to-End Reliability
Determine Impacts On
Adhesive Label Mailers
Traditional Label Mailers
USPS
®
36
Adhesive Labels Summary
Value is in Reduced Labeling Costs
Label Removal Impacts Value
Time to Remove
Time to Correct/Repair Holder
Poor Readability Impacts Value
Miss-Placed Label
Miss-Printed Barcode
Loss of Label
Value/Costs with Both Technologies In Place
37
®
Open Discussion
MTAC
Mail Prep & Entry Focus Group
Periodicals Track
February 18, 2015
39
®
Periodicals Track
Action Items from Last Meeting
Open discussion
Agenda
40
®
Action Items from Last Meeting Follow up to determine business rules for MPE for
bundle scan and mapping to eDoc – keyed vs scanned.
–Business rules on eDoc on key vs. scanned (results)
Create a mission statement for a multi- scheme pallets
FSS pallet workgroup - Work Group -#168 developed
Need for workgroup to refine mail piece characteristics
– Work Group # 169 developed
Action Items
41
®
Action Items from Last Meeting Review EMIR process and leverage technology to
improve process
FAST User group to explore options to improve data on
unload times - Update provided on webinar –
2/5/25
Gather input on bundle requirements and materials
prior to federal register
Action Items
42
® Flats: Expected Bundle Scans
Based on eDoc container make-up, ~92% of bundles are expected
to be bundle sorted
~68% of those bundles receive a bundle scan
• Standard mail: 73%
• Periodicals: 63%
Expected Bundle Scans
Based on analysis of Full-Service flats mailings with mailing dates of 10/4 to 10/18
43
®
Open Discussion
MTAC
Mail Prep & Entry Focus Group
Standard Track
February 18, 2015
45
® Agenda
Standard Track
Action Items from Last Meeting
Self-adhesive Tray Labels
Open Discussion
46
®
Action Items from Last Meeting
Add pallet volume % decrease to deck prior to
distribution - Cathy ( done) on RIBBs – posted on RIBBS
Create a mission statement for a multi- scheme pallets
FSS pallet workgroup - Work Group # 168 developed
Review EMIR and leverage technology to improve
process –
Evaluate monthly label list cycle after Network
Rationalization - Presented on webinar – 2/5/15
Action Items
47
®
Action Items from Last Meeting
FAST User Group 3 to explore options to improve unload
times - Presented on webinar 2/5/15
Follow up on MTAC participant recruitment messaging for
User Group 3
Follow up on press release on status of ADVANCE and
ePUBWATCH – Webinar on 1/9/15, Notification of program
status is posted on RIBBS
Action Items
®
48
Tray Label Scanning
Issues and Plans
February 2015
®
49
Recent Tray Scanning Issues
Improvement Efforts
Adhesive Labels
®
50
Tray Scanning Issues
Mail Visibility Program Requires Tray Scans
24 Digit Barcode Tray Label = Increases Data
2012 LSS Project Indicated:
Poor Label/Barcode Read Rates ~ 85%
Reduced Read Rates on 24 Digit
Poor Scanner Reliability
Old Scanner Technology
Decreasing Read Rates
Loss of Entry Scans by Unseleevers (ATUs)
®
51
2012 Tray Read Rates / Tour
Largest HSTS Read Rate drops are on Tours 2 and 3
HSTS National Read Rate per Tour
88%
89%
90%
91%
92%
93%
94%
3/22
3/29 4/
54/
124/
194/
26 5/3
5/10
5/17
5/24
5/31 6/
76/
146/
216/
28 7/5
7/12
7/19
7/26 8/
2
T3
T2
T1
®
52
2012 Tray Volumes
Over 800 Million Tray Scans Annually
RCS 1,429,524
HSTS 3,036,257
ATU 3,709,065
LCTS 8,496,025
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
Trays Processed per Week
Avera
ge T
rays p
er
Week
Tray Volumes
®
53
2012 Tray Rejects
Over 125 Million Tray Scan Rejects Annually (15.6%)
RCS 69,233 HSTS 274,109
ATU 1,106,947
LCTS 1,093,846
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
No-Reads per Week
Avera
ge T
rays p
er
We
ek
No-Read Tray Volumes
®
54
Tray Scanning Improvements
2013 Universal Scanner Solution Developed Multiple Tray Platforms – LCTS, HCTS, HSUS….
Commonality of Spares and Training
Camera (Vs Scanner) Technology
Improve Read Rates ~ 8%
Reduced Maintenance
Improved Reliability
Scan Rate and Equipment Monitoring
Additional Reporting Systems (MSWYB)
* Improved Reporting/Visibility *
®
55
Improvement Schedule
Completed:
Robotic Systems (RCS) Spring ‘14
High Speed Tray Sorters (HSTS) Fall ‘14
Low Cost Tray Sorters (LCTS) Fall ‘14
In Progress:
Unsleevers (ATU) March ‘15
Tray Systems Fall ‘15/ Spring ‘16
Airline Systems Fall ‘15/ Spring ‘16
®
56
Improvement Results
®
57
Continuing Improvement
LSS Project to Measure All Issues
Why Not 99% on All Platforms
Develop Improvement Plans
Potential Issues:
Lost Labels
Label Holder Interference or Damage
Out of Spec. Barcodes (Squeezed 24 Digit)
Poorly Printed or Smudged Barcodes
Miss-placed Labels
Reject Chutes Full
®
58
Adhesive Labels
Benefits:
New Technologies
Easier Application
Reduced Manual Cost
No Label Holder Interference
Improved Label Quality
Improved Label Barcode Quality
®
59
Adhesive Labels
Issues/Concerns:
Accurate Label Position – USPS Trays
Over Labeling Bleed Through
Reliability of Adhesives
Clean Label Removal – USPS & Mailers
Label Removal Costs
Not Universal: Savings for Adhesive Users =
Removal Costs for Traditional
Maintenance of Labeling Equipment - Quality
Label & Barcode Quality *Cannot Go Backwards*
®
60
Adhesive Labels Testing
Initial Adhesive Label Tests Showed Promise
Adhesive Label Identified
Reliable Adhesive at Normal Temperatures
Minimal Holder Damage on Removal
Some Residue
Live Testing to Prove Feasibility (or not)
End-to-End Controlled Test
Identify Issues and Solutions
Work to Qualification Standards
®
61
Adhesive Labels Testing
Determine Costs of Label Removal
Clean Removal
Damage to Label Holders/Cost to Correct
Double Label Errors
Evaluate End-to-End Reliability
Determine Impacts On
Adhesive Label Mailers
Traditional Label Mailers
USPS
®
62
Adhesive Labels Summary
Value is in Reduced Labeling Costs
Label Removal Impacts Value
Time to Remove
Time to Correct/Repair Holder
Poor Readability Impacts Value
Miss-Placed Label
Miss-Printed Barcode
Loss of Label
Value/Costs with Both Technologies In Place
63
®
Open Discussion
Related Documents
