• on Aug 6th, 2012 in Finances: Cost & Revenue | 10 comments
    The Postal Service has built a strong brand name around service, trust, and security. Few other organizations can lay claim to such a strong brand, one with more than 200 years of history and cultivated by the Postal Service’s consistent fulfillment of its mission to securely deliver mail to every American, regardless of location, at a reasonable price. For 6 straight years, the Ponemon Institute has named the Postal Service the most trusted government agency and one of the top 10 most trusted businesses in the nation. Many postal observers have encouraged the Postal Service to leverage this “trusted brand” to expand its offerings in the digital market. But a steady drumbeat of bad news over the past few years around its financial situation, potential cuts in service, and uncertainty over its retail and network downsizing plans has unsettled stakeholders. The question many of them ask is whether the ongoing negative news coverage could be hurting the overall brand. Even the PMG noted earlier this year that the mailing industry is experiencing a “crisis in confidence.” Lingering uncertainty about the Postal Service’s future could further erode confidence. Further, competitors can use the turmoil to their advantage, touting their own services as easy and reliable in the face of uncertainty. What do you think? Have the ongoing news reports about the Postal Service’s finances and uncertain future affected your view of the organization? Do you think these reports hurt the Postal Service brand? Or is the Postal Service doing the best it can under the circumstances?
  • on Jul 30th, 2012 in Finances: Cost & Revenue | 2 comments
    The U.S. Postal Service is one of the largest real estate owners in the United States with more than 8,600 facilities and 950 million square feet of land. (The Postal Service leases another 24,600 facilities.) It also has about 357 unused land parcels with no structures on them, which have a book value of $128 million. The lands’ assessed values are likely to be significantly higher. The Postal Service has contracted with real estate company C.B. Richard Ellis to sell its surplus real estate, which includes both buildings and land. You can find the properties on the following website, http://www.uspspropertiesforsale.com/. The sale of properties would generate cash flow for the financially strapped organization. It would also contribute to streamlining its physical footprint as the Postal Service aligns itself to be a leaner, faster, and more market-responsive organization. However, the sale of real estate assets would not produce recurring revenues. Should the Postal Service consider leasing unused land parcels to developers so they can be used in a creative way to generate alternative sources of revenue? Or is this the right time for the Postal Service to sell its unused land parcels as it shapes itself into a leaner infrastructure? Or does it make sense for the Postal Service to hold these properties now and try selling them once the current real estate market regains some stability?
  • 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.

Pages