on Jul 23rd, 2012 in Ideas Worth Exploring | 2 comments
 
Between Fiscal Years 2004 and 2011, the U.S. Postal Service implemented over 100 area mail processing (AMP) consolidations, reducing the number of mail processing facilities from 676 to 461. Following implementation of an AMP, the Postal Service completes a post-implementation review (PIR) — a two-step documented process that tells management whether or not an AMP achieved the anticipated results. The PIR compares pre- and post-consolidation data, including projected savings, costs, workhours, and levels of service. The first PIR is supposed to be completed approximately 6 months after the AMP consolidation and it usually indicates whether or not the AMP is going to achieve the projected savings. In addition, it alerts management of any action needed to ensure AMP goals are met. The second PIR is supposed to be completed after the first full year of implementation and it compares the proposed AMP results against the actual results to determine the success of the consolidation. Like the first PIR, it provides management an opportunity to take additional action as needed. Please share your ideas on the subject of PIRs and your responses to the questions below: • Do you think the PIR is an adequate success measurement tool for AMP consolidations? • Are there ways, other than a PIR, to measure the success or effectiveness of AMP consolidations? • Should PIR results be disclosed publicly? Why or why not? This blog is hosted by the OIG's Planning, Innovation, and Optimization directorate.

Comments

The USPS has a bad habit of making the numbers look good on paper but in reality the bad numbers are still there. Example: Mail run on the DBCS machines showing up as "out of sort" pocket #2 this looked bad showing the operator feeding mail that didn't correspond to the sortplan, so the fix was to alter the bin 2 pocket to stop feeding mail when only approx. 1 inch of mail entered bin 2. this didn't solve the problem it just kept the numbers from showing up on any report. This is the postal way! AMP for Tuscaloosa AL says no cost for moving the DBCS's there, its says they are to be disposed of.Well you would think that even that would have some sort of cost associated with it. But now after AMP was approved they say the are going to move them somewhere else. Albiet 50% of what is in the study does not get implemented as written in the AMP. The concensus is get it approved then we will do what ever we want as needed.

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE PHONE NUMBERS FOR POST OFFICES WERE CORRECT ON THE US POSTAL SERVICE WEBSITE. LANDSDOWNE, PA, FOR EXAMPLE. IT TOOK ME 6 TELEPHONE CALLS TO VARIOUS OFFICES TO FIND THE CORRECT PHONE NUNMBER WHICH IS:
610.623.9338.

YIKES.

Add new comment

This site provides a forum to discuss different aspects of the United States Postal Service and how it can be improved. We encourage you to share your comments, ideas, and concerns.

This is a moderated site—we will review all comments before posting them. We expect that participants will treat each other with respect. We will not post comments that contain vulgar language, personal attacks of any kind, or offensive terms that target specific individuals or groups. We will not post comments that are clearly off-topic or that promote services or products. Comments that make unsupported accusations will also not be posted.

We ask that reporters send questions to the USPS OIG Media Office through their normal channels and refrain from submitting questions here as comments. We will not post questions from reporters.

We recognize that the Web is a 24/7 medium, and your comments are welcome at any time. Given the need to manage Federal resources effectively, however, we will review comments and post them from 9:00 a.m—5:00 p.m Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. We will read and post comments submitted after hours, on weekends, or on holidays as early as possible the next business day.

To protect your own privacy, and the privacy of others, please do not include personal information or personally identifiable information such as names, addresses, phone numbers or e-mail addresses in the body of your comment.

Except when specifically noted, any views or opinions expressed on this forum (or any other forums available via an RSS feed) are those of the individual bloggers. The views and posted comments do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General, or the Federal government.

Thank you for taking the time to read this comment policy and disclaimer. We plan to blog weekly on as many emerging new media topics as possible. We encourage your participation in our discussion and look forward to an active exchange of ideas.