• on Dec 15th, 2014 in Strategy & Public Policy | 22 comments

    Is the U.S. Postal Service a business or a public service organization? Well, it’s actually both, and those overlapping – and sometimes conflicting – obligations have created major challenges for the agency over the years.

    Historically, the Post Office was deliberately used by the government to expand transportation services such as roads and passenger air service. In the modern era, the 1968 President’s commission on postal issues, known as the Kappel Commission, declared the Post Office to be a business; however, the Postal Service continues to provide infrastructure services that not all businesses would provide, such as maintaining needed rural post offices that operate at a loss.

    It was easier to manage the ongoing tension between the Postal Service’s dual mandates when postal revenues were strong enough to sustain the infrastructure and also cover all of the agency’s operating costs. But today, the Digital Age is cutting into the volume of the product that contributes more than half of the funds to support the network: First-Class Mail. And this strain has led to more tension between the Postal Service as a public service provider and as a business. Meanwhile, new technologies and global commerce are changing the nation’s infrastructure needs. The Postal Service would benefit from more clarity about what it should offer in this evolving environment.

    Our new white paper, The Postal Service’s Role as Infrastructure, gives three broad options the Postal Service and its stakeholders could consider when deciding how to adapt the Postal Service’s role for the future. These options are not mutually exclusive. But they should be evaluated together so all potential uses are recognized and accounted for as part of major changes to the size and scope of the Postal Service’s infrastructure.

    • Option 1: Adjust the postal network to the changing demand for mail and the growth in parcels. The Postal Service is making efforts to do this now.
    • Option 2: Repurpose the existing infrastructure to address innovative services and new revenue streams, such as micro-warehousing.
    • Option 3: Increase the value of the physical postal infrastructure by digitally enhancing it. For example, carriers could use mobile handheld devices to perform more services at the door or from the truck, such as selling stamps, accepting Cash-on-Delivery (COD) payments, recharging debit cards, or even processing passports.

    What do you think? What options should stakeholders and the Postal Service consider? Is the Postal Service’s role as a national infrastructure still relevant today and how has it changed? 

  • on May 5th, 2014 in Strategy & Public Policy | 0 comments

    The U.S. Postal Service’s workforce demographics add an extra layer of challenges to an organization that already has plenty. We recently blogged about the Postal Service’s brain drain – the loss of institutional knowledge due to a large number of workers retiring. This week we look at the additional challenge of creating a robust corporate succession plan when nearly half of the Postal Service’s executives will be eligible to retire by 2015.

    Succession planning is a major undertaking at many organizations. But it’s especially difficult when the pool of candidates is shrinking. The Postal Service has been downsizing for the past decade – 200,000 fewer career employees since 2004. It has an urgent need to identify and develop top talent for future executive positions. Without a sound plan, the organization faces significant operational disruptions. Our recent management advisory on the topic noted that the Postal Service has established a sound Corporate Succession Planning (CSP) program to identify and develop top-performing employees for new or expanded executive roles. We found the Postal Service has incorporated many best practices of successful organizations, such as laying out a strategic vision, getting buy-in from top leadership, providing early career development, encouraging diversity, and emphasizing retention. Further, potential successors said the program met their expectations and was effective in developing them into leaders.

    We encouraged the Postal Service to move quickly to approve developmental activities so potential successors have the skills they need when leadership positions become available.

    Share with us your experience. If you are in the private sector or with a different government agency, how does your organization handle succession planning? Do you see the effects of this plan on training and retention? If you are a postal employee, how can the Postal Service ensure it has a successful executive succession plan when attrition is such a factor?

  • on Feb 18th, 2014 in Strategy & Public Policy | 19 comments

    There’s no lack of opinions in Washington about what the U.S. Postal Service should do to get out of its precarious financial situation. Cut this, add that, restructure these, and so on. But what about the public? What do Americans want - expect - from the Postal Service?

    Our office commissioned focus groups across the nation, speaking with scores of people young and old, from rural areas and big cities. The goal was to gauge perceptions of the Postal Service to understand what Americans not only want from the Postal Service, but also need from it. The results are compiled and analyzed in our new white paper, What America Wants and Needs from the Postal Service.

    One key finding was that (a), many participants mistakenly believed that the Postal Service receives taxpayer funding, and (b), when they learned the Postal Service is in fact self-funded, much like any other business, nearly everyone’s views and expectations began to soften, allowing for greater flexibility and compromise on service.

    Overall, we found that Americans were most willing to accept a reduction in a particular service they are currently pleased with. For instance, most rural participants were open to – even excited by – the possibility of shifting to cluster box delivery because it could provide more security in locations where mail theft and mail box vandalism are common. Reduced number of delivery days was also acceptable to almost all participants.

    Among other key findings, all but two of the total 101 participants said they would, in general, be affected to some degree if the Postal Service were to disappear. And rural participants viewed post offices as community centers, while urban participants saw them as a convenience.

    The big take-away: We found that what Americans need from the Postal Service is much less than what they want, and they are willing to make trade-offs to maintain a certain level of service. What America Wants and Needs from the Postal Service [link] details the trade-offs, highlighting some of the different preferences that emerge when urban and rural populations are compared. And yet, among the differences, a common theme is also evident – Americans still value the Postal Service.

    Tell us your thoughts:

    • What do you need and want from the Postal Service?
    • Did you know that the Postal Service is self-funded?
    • Does that knowledge affect your opinion or expectations regarding Postal Service services? 

Pages