# Presentation: 675217

## MTAC Workgroup 114
Establish Service Standards and Measurement
Final Report
MTAC General Session November 7, 2007

**MTAC Workgroup 114**
**Establish Service Standards and Measurement**
**Final Report**
**MTAC General Session November 7, 2007**

## Joint USPS/Industry workgroup formed in February 2007 to develop recommendations on service standards and potential measurement systems, as required under Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA)

**Workgroup Mission**

## Workgroup formed Feb 2007
198 Members (including all subgroup members)
63 mail owners
53 mail service providers
57 USPS
25 “observers” (GAO, OCA-PRC, PRC)
45 Full workgroup or subgroup meetings held

- Workgroup formed Feb 2007
- 198 Members (including all subgroup members)
- 63 mail owners
- 53 mail service providers
- 57 USPS
- 25 “observers” (GAO, OCA-PRC, PRC)
- 45 Full workgroup or subgroup meetings held

**Overview**

## Full workgroup co-chairs 
Kathy Siviter, President, PCSi (PostCom)
Jeffery Lewis, USPS Strategy & Transition Group
FCM subgroup co-chairs
Jody Berenblatt, Sr. VP, Postal Strategy, Bank of America 
Chris Oronzio, USPS Mgr., Processing Center Ops
Periodicals subgroup co-chairs
Dennis Farley, Distribution Director, ESPN The Magazine
Jo Ann Miller, USPS Mgr., Integration & Support

- Full workgroup co-chairs** **
- Kathy Siviter, President, PCSi (PostCom)
- Jeffery Lewis, USPS Strategy & Transition Group
- FCM subgroup co-chairs
- Jody Berenblatt, Sr. VP, Postal Strategy, Bank of America
- Chris Oronzio, USPS Mgr., Processing Center Ops
- Periodicals subgroup co-chairs
- Dennis Farley, Distribution Director, ESPN The Magazine
- Jo Ann Miller,** **USPS** **Mgr., Integration & Support

**Workgroup Structure**

## Standard Mail subgroup co-chairs
Wanda Senne, National Dir. of Postal Development, World Marketing 
Kimberly Simard, Dir. of Marketing Services, L. L. Bean 
Tom Foti, USPS Mgr., Integration and Planning, Product Development
Package Services subgroup co-chairs
Tom Underkoffler, Dir. of Logistics, Medco Health Solutions
John Gullo, USPS Mgr., Product Development, Package Services

- Standard Mail subgroup co-chairs
- Wanda Senne, National Dir. of Postal Development, World Marketing
- Kimberly Simard, Dir. of Marketing Services, L. L. Bean
- Tom Foti, USPS Mgr., Integration and Planning, Product Development
- Package Services subgroup co-chairs
- Tom Underkoffler, Dir. of Logistics, Medco Health Solutions
- John Gullo, USPS Mgr., Product Development, Package Services

**Workgroup Structure (cont’d)**

## Workgroup Status Report
Sept 21:  Workgroup recommendations report submitted to USPS
Sept 24:  Workgroup industry co-chairs briefed PRC on recommendations
Oct 2:  USPS presented proposed standards to workgroup
Oct 17:  USPS published proposed standards in Federal Register (comments due November 16)
Nov 7:  Workgroup final report to MTAC; workgroup sunset

**Workgroup Status Report**
- Sept 21:  Workgroup recommendations report submitted to USPS
- Sept 24:  Workgroup industry co-chairs briefed PRC on recommendations
- Oct 2:  USPS presented proposed standards to workgroup
**Oct 17:  USPS published proposed standards in *****Federal Register (comments due November 16)***
- Nov 7:  Workgroup final report to MTAC; workgroup sunset

## Executive Summary
Service Standards & Measurement Recommendations
Cross-Product Recommendations
Product-Specific Recommendations

Service Standards/Measurement Review Process
Special Services Recommendations
Review Recommendations and this Presentation 			http://ribbs/mits/mtac.cfm

- Executive Summary
- Service Standards & Measurement Recommendations
- Cross-Product Recommendations
- Product-Specific Recommendations
- Service Standards/Measurement Review Process
- Special Services Recommendations
**Review Recommendations and this Presentation ****	****	****	****http://ribbs/mits/mtac.cfm**

**Final Workgroup Recommendations (131-page report)**

## USPS should perform in-depth review of existing service standards for all market-dominant products and propose changes that reflect the USPS’ existing network capabilities and mail environment (e.g., drop ship).
USPS review performed March-Sept 2007
Results shared with WG 114 in late August
Revisions made by USPS after further WG dialog
USPS proposed service standards published in Federal Register for comment reflect updated business rules

- USPS should perform in-depth review of existing service standards for all market-dominant products and propose changes that reflect the USPS’ existing network capabilities and mail environment (e.g., drop ship).
- USPS review performed March-Sept 2007
- Results shared with WG 114 in late August
- Revisions made by USPS after further WG dialog
**USPS proposed service standards published in *****Federal Register***** for comment reflect updated business rules**

**Cross Product Service Standards Recommendations**

## Establish for all market-dominant products baseline Performance Goals for
On-Time Delivery that are aggressive, attainable, and affordable (only FCM goals exist today), with a published plan for improvement over time.
Service Consistency that will reduce the length and volume in the “tail of the mail”

- Establish for all market-dominant products baseline Performance Goals for
- On-Time Delivery that are aggressive, attainable, and affordable (only FCM goals exist today), with a published plan for improvement over time.
- Service Consistency that will reduce the length and volume in the “tail of the mail”

**Cross Product Service Standards Recommendations**

## To Improve Service:

|  | Percent of Mail Delivered Within Standard | # of Days To Achieve 99% Delivered |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Day Delivery Area | 95% | 3 days |
| 2 Day Delivery Area | 92% | 5 days |
| 3 Day Delivery Area | 90% | 6 days |

- Increase the On-Time Percentage
- Reduce the Days to 99% Delivered

**Improve Consistency:  **
**FCM Illustrative Report on Service Performance**

## Critical Entry Times (CETs) are integrally linked to service standards and performance measurement.  New MTAC workgroup should be formed to focus on CET issues identified by WG 114, including:
USPS oversight of local facilities in setting/changing CETs
USPS should continue to consult with major customers entering mail at the postal facility in establishing/changing CETs
USPS should make CET data available to mailers, link to service standards
CETs must be tied to service performance measurement system

- Critical Entry Times (CETs) are integrally linked to service standards and performance measurement.  New MTAC workgroup should be formed to focus on CET issues identified by WG 114, including:
- USPS oversight of local facilities in setting/changing CETs
- USPS should continue to consult with major customers entering mail at the postal facility in establishing/changing CETs
**USPS should make CET data available to mailers, link to service standards**
- CETs must be tied to service performance measurement system

**Cross Product Service Standards Recommendations**

## USPS must submit plan on how it will achieve the new service standards, due to PRC/Congress by June 20, 2008
USPS envisions achieving the new standards with existing network capabilities (e.g., without significant cost increases)
Plan to include:
CET changes (national, standardized CETs for Standard Mail and Package Services?)
USPS performance goals
Network re-design ?
What else?
WG recommends customers have opportunity to review and provide USPS with feedback on its plan

- USPS must submit plan on how it will achieve the new service standards, due to PRC/Congress by June 20, 2008
- USPS envisions achieving the new standards with existing network capabilities (e.g., without significant cost increases)
- Plan to include:
- CET changes (national, standardized CETs for Standard Mail and Package Services?)
- USPS performance goals
- Network re-design ?
- What else?
**WG recommends customers have opportunity to review and provide USPS with feedback on its plan**

**Cross Product Service Standards Recommendations**

## Recommendations on communications and tools improvements
Service standards for all products need to be publicized, and detailed service standards information available to all product users  (Periodicals, Standard Mail and Package Services standards not widely communicated in the past)
Better access to service standards information needed (e.g., web-based tools, etc.)
Improved functionality of service standards tools (users group should be formed)

- Recommendations on communications and tools improvements
**Service standards for all products need to be publicized, and detailed service standards information available to all product users**  (Periodicals, Standard Mail and Package Services standards not widely communicated in the past)
- Better access to service standards information needed (e.g., web-based tools, etc.)
- Improved functionality of service standards tools (users group should be formed)

**Cross Product Service Standards Recommendations**

## First-Class Mail Service Standards Recommendations
Needs of product users 
Consistent, Timely, Accurate, and Cost Effective Delivery (for both business and individual non-business mail)
Existing Service Standards:  1 to 3 days
Recommendation:   Maintain existing standards
The USPS has regularly updated FCM service standards (most recently, a significant realignment in 2001)
Consistent, timely, accurate and cost effective mailpiece delivery expected by senders and receivers alike
Measure all FCM, not just collection mail (EXFC does not measure business FCM)

**First-Class Mail Service Standards Recommendations**
**Needs of product users**
- _Consistent_, Timely, Accurate, and Cost Effective Delivery (for both business and individual non-business mail)
**Existing Service Standards:  1 to 3 days**
**Recommendation:   Maintain existing standards**
- The USPS has regularly updated FCM service standards (most recently, a significant realignment in 2001)
- Consistent, timely, accurate and cost effective mailpiece delivery expected by senders and receivers alike
**Measure all FCM, not just collection mail ****(EXFC does not measure business FCM)**

## USPS Proposed First-Class Mail Service Standards (Domestic)

**USPS Proposed First-Class Mail Service Standards (Domestic)**

*** Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico not included**

| 
Mail Class | Existing Standard | USPS Proposed Standard |
| --- | --- | --- |
| First-Class Mail | 1-3 days | 1-3 days * |

**No changes proposed by USPS**** *****except***** for non-contiguous U.S. locations** (see specific 3-digit Origin/Destination ZIP Code pair data for specific proposed standards)
- USPS’ proposed service standards for non-contiguous locations: can be up to 5 days

## First-Class Mail Service Standards Recommendations
Explore reducing instances of non-reciprocal FCM service Standards (currently 1,200 3-digit Origin/Destination ZIP Code pairs do not have reciprocal standards)
USPS should evaluate network capabilities for non-contiguous locations, publish specific standards for comment
While any new standard should reflect the existing network capabilities, it is important that the USPS not add to or extend the time for delivery beyond that currently achieved
Develop service standards for forwarded/returned mail, COA form entry
CET issues (addressed in cross-product recommendations)
Consistency improvements needed (addressed in cross-product recommendations)

**First-Class Mail Service Standards Recommendations**
- Explore reducing instances of non-reciprocal FCM service Standards (currently 1,200 3-digit Origin/Destination ZIP Code pairs do not have reciprocal standards)
- USPS should evaluate network capabilities for non-contiguous locations, publish specific standards for comment
- While any new standard should reflect the existing network capabilities, it is important that the USPS not add to or extend the time for delivery beyond that currently achieved
- Develop service standards for forwarded/returned mail, COA form entry
- CET issues (addressed in cross-product recommendations)
- Consistency improvements needed (addressed in cross-product recommendations)

## International Mail (all products) is 3% of total USPS revenue and .37% of total volume
Confusion regarding scope since USPS product reorganization (April 2007), therefore workgroup recommendation is focused on single piece international 
Workgroup International Single-Piece recommendations:
Focus on Service Standards and Measurements for the domestic portion of the service:  6-day standard for 90% of the volume
USPS should not be held accountable for service performance on International Mail when it is outside the control of the USPS (Another country/post, or Military dept)
End users (both business and individual) value any end to end reporting that may be available

- International Mail (all products) is 3% of total USPS revenue and .37% of total volume
- Confusion regarding scope since USPS product reorganization (April 2007), therefore workgroup recommendation is focused on single piece international
- Workgroup International **Single-Piece recommendations:**
**Focus on Service Standards and Measurements for the domestic portion of the service**:  6-day standard for 90% of the volume
- USPS should not be held accountable for service performance on International Mail when it is outside the control of the USPS (Another country/post, or Military dept)
- End users (both business and individual) value any end to end reporting that may be available

**Service Standards for International Mail**

## Periodicals Service Standards Recommendations
Needs of product users:  
Periodicals must have timely, reliable and consistent delivery
Existing Service Standards:  1 to 7 days
Recommendation:    Maintain existing standards 
Service Standards have been set by the USPS for over 30 years and have been updated quarterly. Periodical mailers must be provided an opportunity for feedback on changes.
USPS Proposed:   Origin and destination-entry service standards, ranging 1-9 days; changes in standards for specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin/destination pairs 

**Periodicals Service Standards Recommendations**
- Needs of product users:
- Periodicals must have *timely*, *reliable* and *consistent* delivery
- Existing Service Standards:  1 to 7 days
- Recommendation:    Maintain existing standards
- Service Standards have been set by the USPS for over 30 years and have been updated quarterly. Periodical mailers must be provided an opportunity for feedback on changes.
**USPS Proposed:   Origin and destination-entry service standards, ranging 1-9 days; changes in standards for specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin/destination pairs**

## USPS Proposed Service Standards – Origin Entry (Domestic)

**USPS Proposed Service Standards – Origin Entry (Domestic)**

*** Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico not included**

| Mail Class | Existing Standard | USPS Proposed Standard |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Periodicals Mail | 1-7 days | 2-9 days * |

| Periodicals Mail | Existing Standard | USPS Proposed Standard |
| --- | --- | --- |
| DDU Entry | N/A + | 1 day |
| DSCF Entry | N/A + | 1 day |
| DADC Entry | N/A + | 1-2 days * |

**USPS Proposed Service Standards – Destination Entry (Domestic)**

*** Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico not included**
**+ Existing standards do not take destination entry into account**

## Periodicals Service Standards Recommendations
Emphasize importance of Critical Entry Times (addressed in cross-product recommendations) 
Ensure standards can be met for small density mailers using end-to-end network
Recommended that USPS evaluate network capabilities for non-contiguous locations, publish proposed specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin/destination pairs for product user comment

**Periodicals Service Standards Recommendations**
- Emphasize importance of Critical Entry Times (addressed in cross-product recommendations)
**Ensure standards can be met for small density mailers using end-to-end network**
- Recommended that USPS evaluate network capabilities for non-contiguous locations, publish proposed specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin/destination pairs for product user comment

## Standard Mail Service Standards Recommendations
Needs of product users:  
Standard Mail users need consistent, predictable service
Existing Service Standards:  3 to 10 days
Recommendation:    Maintain existing standards for origin-entered Standard Mail; develop service standards matrix for destination-entered Standard Mail; other recommendations
Service Standards set by the USPS over 30 years ago; not updated since that time, not based on existing USPS network capabilities, actual driving distance/time between points, and existing drop ship environment
USPS Proposed:   Origin and destination-entry service standards, ranging 2-10 days; changes in standards for specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin/destination pairs based on updated business rules

**Standard Mail Service Standards Recommendations**
- Needs of product users:
- Standard Mail users need consistent, predictable service
- Existing Service Standards:  3 to 10 days
- Recommendation:    Maintain existing standards for origin-entered Standard Mail; develop service standards matrix for destination-entered Standard Mail; other recommendations
- Service Standards set by the USPS over 30 years ago; not updated since that time, _**not**_ based on existing USPS network capabilities, actual driving distance/time between points, and existing drop ship environment
**USPS Proposed:   Origin and destination-entry service standards, ranging 2-10 days**; changes in standards for specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin/destination pairs based on updated business rules

## Standard Mail Service Standards

**Standard Mail Service Standards**

| Workgroup Recommendation: 
Range of Days |  |  | USPS Proposal |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Entry | Carrier Route | Non-Carrier Route | Same standards for all presort levels |
| DDU | 0 to 2 days | NA | 2 days |
| DSCF | 2 to 3 days | 2 to 4 days | 3 days |
| DBMC | 3 to 4 days | 3 to 5 days | 5 days |
| Origin | 3-digit O/D Pairs ± 1 or 2 days (depending on distance) |  | 3 to 10 days |

- No distinction in service standards based on shape

## Standard Mail Service Standards Recommendations
Improve consistency and predictability; recognize negative impact of early delivery 
USPS consistency performance goals as well as on-time perf. goals
Workgroup supports USPS’ plans to improve operational disciplines to improve Standard Mail service performance (e.g., limit deferability, keep local mail local, etc.)
Workgroup recommends service standards be a range of days, no broader than a 3-day window (except for origin-entered mail traveling greater distances) 
2-3 day range of days is consistent with the USPS Fall Mailing Guidelines used since 1998
A 5-day range, for example, would be too broad to effectively plan pre- and post mailing activities, and also does not recognize the negative impact of “early” delivery.

**Standard Mail Service Standards Recommendations**
- Improve consistency and predictability; recognize negative impact of early delivery** **
- USPS consistency performance goals as well as on-time perf. goals
- Workgroup supports USPS’ plans to improve operational disciplines to improve Standard Mail service performance (e.g., limit deferability, keep local mail local, etc.)
**Workgroup recommends service standards be a range of days, no broader than a 3-day window (except for origin-entered mail traveling greater distances)**
- 2-3 day range of days is consistent with the USPS Fall Mailing Guidelines used since 1998
- A 5-day range, for example, would be too broad to effectively plan pre- and post mailing activities, and also does not recognize the negative impact of “early” delivery.

## Standard Mail Service Standards Recommendations
Establish aggressive service performance goal
95% USPS on time performance goal, to be achieved within existing USPS network capabilities and resources
Review at end of 2009 using 12 months of measurement data, then consult with product users
Use of Requested In Home Dates (RIHDs).  Workgroup recommends: 
USPS continue to honor Requested In Home Dates (RIHD) when possible
New MTAC workgroup be formed to explore:  ground rules for inclusion of RIHD mail in service performance measurement, processing of RIHD mail, relationship between RIHD and service standards
Workgroup supports inclusion of as much RIHD mail in service performance measurement as possible

**Standard Mail Service Standards Recommendations**
- Establish aggressive service performance goal
- 95% USPS on time performance goal, to be achieved within existing USPS network capabilities and resources
- Review at end of 2009 using 12 months of measurement data, then consult with product users
- Use of Requested In Home Dates (RIHDs).  Workgroup recommends:
- USPS continue to honor Requested In Home Dates (RIHD) when possible
**New MTAC workgroup be formed to explore:  ground rules for inclusion of RIHD mail in service performance measurement, processing of RIHD mail, relationship between RIHD and service standards**
- Workgroup supports inclusion of as much RIHD mail in service performance measurement as possible

## Standard Mail Service Standards Recommendations
Adjustment for fall mailing season (An additional processing day should be added to the service standard during the months of September through December because of heavy volume)
Product users need to be able to accurately predict service expectations, and adjust those expectations when heavy volume period causes over-capacity of USPS system
Service performance measurement scoring may not recognize sub-standard performance in a given month (e.g., annual scoring would average all months)
Non-Contiguous Locations:  USPS should adjust existing standards to reflect network capabilities, and publish specific standards for product user comment
Bound Printed Matter Flats Service Standards should mirror Standard Mail standards

**Standard Mail Service Standards Recommendations**
- Adjustment for fall mailing season (An additional processing day should be added to the service standard during the months of September through December because of heavy volume)
**Product users need to be able to accurately predict service expectations, and adjust those expectations when heavy volume period causes over-capacity of USPS system**
- Service performance measurement scoring may not recognize sub-standard performance in a given month (e.g., annual scoring would average all months)
- Non-Contiguous Locations:  USPS should adjust existing standards to reflect network capabilities, and publish specific standards for product user comment
- Bound Printed Matter Flats Service Standards should mirror Standard Mail standards

## Package Services Mail Service Standards Recommendations
Needs of product users:  
Package Services users need Standards that are reasonable and consistent with the price of the service; meet delivery expectations of the customers 
Consistency and reliability are key (Tail of the mail leads to higher customer service costs, lost revenues, and lost repeat business)
Existing Service Standards:  Package Services  2 to 9 days
					  Standard Mail -- 3 to 10 days

**Package Services Mail Service Standards Recommendations**
- Needs of product users:
- Package Services users need Standards that are reasonable and consistent with the price of the service; meet delivery expectations of the customers
**Consistency and reliability are key (Tail of the mail leads to higher customer service costs, lost revenues, and lost repeat business)**
- Existing Service Standards:  Package Services  2 to 9 days
- 					  Standard Mail -- 3 to 10 days

## Package Services Mail Service Standards Recommendations
Recommendation:    Maintain existing standards for origin-entered mail; develop service standards matrix for destination-entered mail; other recommendations
Service Standards set by the USPS over 30 years ago; not updated since that time, not based on existing USPS network capabilities, actual driving distance/time between points, and existing drop ship environment
USPS Proposed:   Origin and destination-entry service standards, ranging 1-8 days; changes in standards for specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin/destination pairs based on updated business rules

**Package Services Mail Service Standards Recommendations**
- Recommendation:    Maintain existing standards for origin-entered mail; develop service standards matrix for destination-entered mail; other recommendations
- Service Standards set by the USPS over 30 years ago; not updated since that time, _**not**_ based on existing USPS network capabilities, actual driving distance/time between points, and existing drop ship environment
**USPS Proposed:   Origin and destination-entry service standards, ranging 1-8 days**; changes in standards for specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin/destination pairs based on updated business rules

## Package Services Mail Service Standards & Goals

**Package Services Mail Service Standards & Goals**

- Workgroup modified its recommendations based on USPS network analysis and proposal
- Re-evaluate standards when performance data available

| Entry Point | Existing Svc Stds (days) | WG 114 Rec. Service Standard (days) | USPS Proposed (days) | Perf. Goal % | Outlier Standard (days) | Total Perf.  Goal -- % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Origin | 2 to 9 | 2 to 8 * | 2 to 8 * | 98 | + 2 | 100 |
| DBMC | N/A + | 2 to 3 * | 3 * | 98 | + 2 | 100 |
| DSCF | N/A + | 1 to 2 * |  2 * | 98 | + 1 | 100 |
| DDU | N/A + | 1 * | 1 * | 98   | + 1 | 100 |

- * Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico not included
**+ **Existing standards do not take destination entry into account

## Standard Mail Parcels Recommendations

**Standard Mail Parcels Recommendations**

- Maintain existing service standards for origin-entered Standard Mail parcels
- Service standards for destination-entered Standard Mail parcels should mirror destination-entry standards for Package Services mail
**Standard Mail Parcel service standards should be measured/reported separately from letters/flats**.  In future, Standard Mail parcels should have separate service standards (align with other parcels)

## Package Services Mail Service Standards Recommendations
Current performance for origin-entered Package Services does not meet current (and proposed) standards.  Close gap gradually within 2 years of implementation without adding costs to product
Non-Contiguous Locations. USPS establish service standards for non-contiguous locations based on existing network capabilities; re-evaluate after one year of actual service performance data 
No seasonality adjustment in service standards 
USPS should conduct a market survey to small business  mailers/consumers to ensure proper input

**Package Services Mail Service Standards Recommendations**
**Current performance for origin-entered Package Services does not meet current (and proposed) standards.****  ****Close gap gradually within 2 years** of implementation without adding costs to product
- Non-Contiguous Locations. USPS establish service standards for non-contiguous locations based on existing network capabilities; re-evaluate after one year of actual service performance data** **
- No seasonality adjustment in service standards
- USPS should conduct a market survey to small business  mailers/consumers to ensure proper input

## USPS Proposed Service Standards – Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico

**USPS Proposed Service Standards – Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico**

- Performance Measured at Port of Entry
- Alaska – Anchorage
- Hawaii – Honolulu
- Puerto Rico – San Juan

| Mail Class | Destination Entry Range (days) |  |  | End-to-End Flow Range (days) |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Alaska | Hawaii | Puerto Rico | Alaska | Hawaii | Puerto Rico |
| First-Class Mail | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1 – 4 | 1 – 4 | 1 – 4 |
| Periodicals | 1 – 6 | 1 – 7 | 1 – 2 | 2 – 21 | 2 – 23 | 2 – 23 |
| Package Svcs | 1 – 7 | 1 – 8 | 1 – 6 | 2 – 19 | 2 – 22 | 2 – 22 |
| Standard Mail | 2 – 9  | 2 – 10 | 2 – 8 | 3 – 22 | 3 – 24 | 3 – 24 |

## USPS Proposed Service Standards – Volume Distribution

**USPS Proposed Service Standards – Volume Distribution**

**First-Class Mail:**   99.5% of current volume = 1-3 day service standard
**Periodicals:**  85.6% of current volume = 1-3 day service standard; 92% of current volume = 1-4 day service standard
**Standard Mail:**  78.6% of current volume = 2-5 day service standard
**Package Services** (not including Standard Mail parcels):  82.9% of current volume = 1-5 day service standard
- USPS volume distribution analysis based on FY 2006 Billing Determinant data and FY 2006 ODIS/RPW data
**Don’t compare the % change of 3-digit pairs and % volume**:  For Periodicals, Standard Mail and Package Services, 0.3% of the 3-digit pairs represent almost 75% of the volume (because those products are largely drop ship-entered)

## Mailers need to evaluate the impact of the USPS’ proposed service standards on their business
Comparing the USPS’ proposed standards to existing standards may not be meaningful (e.g., for Standard Mail and Package Services the existing standards are 30 years old, have not been updated, are not based on existing USPS network capabilities, and do not reflect existing service levels...)
A better comparison might be the USPS’ proposed standards to existing service performance...but that data is not always available
The Key Question:   Would the USPS’ proposed standards meet your business needs if the USPS were to achieve those standards?

**Evaluating the USPS’ Proposed Service Standards**

- Mailers need to evaluate the impact of the USPS’ proposed service standards on their business
- Comparing the USPS’ proposed standards to existing standards may not be meaningful (e.g., for Standard Mail and Package Services the existing standards are 30 years old, have not been updated, are not based on existing USPS network capabilities, and do not reflect existing service levels...)
**A better comparison might be the USPS’ proposed standards to existing service performance****...**but that data is not always available
**The Key Question:   Would the USPS’ proposed standards meet your business needs if the USPS were to achieve those standards?**

## All product users should evaluate and comment on the USPS’ proposed service standards
Federal Register notice (and MTAC 114 final report) posted on RIBBS in the MTAC front page
USPS proposed service standards by 3-digit pairs data available at: ribbs.usps.gov/svcstandardsprop
USPS will publish final rule by December 20, 2007
New standards to take effect January 2008 (measurement to begin when?)
USPS and PRC to continue consultation process
USPS plan to Congress/PRC on achieving standards (due June 20, 2008)

**All product users should evaluate and comment on the USPS’ proposed service standards**
***Federal Register***** notice (and MTAC 114 final report) posted on RIBBS in the MTAC front page**
**USPS proposed service standards by 3-digit pairs data available at: ****ribbs.usps.gov/svcstandardsprop**
- USPS will publish final rule by December 20, 2007
- New standards to take effect January 2008 (measurement to begin when?)
- USPS and PRC to continue consultation process
- USPS plan to Congress/PRC on achieving standards (due June 20, 2008)

**Service Standards:  What Comes Next?**

## Establish annual formal review process for service standards and measurement (USPS, PRC, mailers)
Quarterly update process for minor changes (with advance notice to mailers, opportunity for feedback)
Formal review process for significant changes (FSS, network redesign, etc.) with customer feedback process
Review of 2008 standards (when performance data available)
Non-Contiguous U.S. locations
Forwarded/Returned Mail
Special Services

**Establish annual formal review process for service standards and measurement (USPS, PRC, mailers)**
- Quarterly update process for minor changes (with advance notice to mailers, opportunity for feedback)
- Formal review process for significant changes (FSS, network redesign, etc.) with customer feedback process
- Review of 2008 standards (when performance data available)
- Non-Contiguous U.S. locations
- Forwarded/Returned Mail
- Special Services

**Ongoing Service Standards/Measurement Review Process**

## Today, customers use whatever process returns the best result (inconsistent points of contact, no escalation process, frustration for USPS and customers)
USPS should develop formal process for resolving service issues, including escalation process
USPS and mailer access to common measurement data for diagnostics
Separate MTAC workgroup should be formed to work on service issue resolution process

- Today, customers use whatever process returns the best result (inconsistent points of contact, no escalation process, frustration for USPS and customers)
- USPS should develop formal process for resolving service issues, including escalation process
- USPS and mailer access to common measurement data for diagnostics
**Separate MTAC workgroup should be formed to work on service issue resolution process**

**Service Issue Resolution Process**

## CONFIRM 
Delivery/Signature Confirmation
Business Reply Mail
Courtesy Reply Mail 
Registered Mail 
Certified Mail
Merchandise Return Service 
Bulk Parcel Return Service
Post Office Box/Caller Service 
Money Orders 
Certificate of Mailing

- CONFIRM
- Delivery/Signature Confirmation
- Business Reply Mail
- Courtesy Reply Mail
- Registered Mail
- Certified Mail
- Merchandise Return Service
- Bulk Parcel Return Service
- Post Office Box/Caller Service
- Money Orders
- Certificate of Mailing

**Special Services recommendations**

## Service Performance Measurement

**Service Performance Measurement**
**Recommendations**

## Workgroup prefers Intelligent Mail-based measurement
USPS should leverage IPC relationship
Workgroup recommendations on alternative (external) measurement systems
Small volume mailstreams may use different measurement systems/methodologies
Measurement quality metrics needed (Start/Stop-the-Clock)
New MTAC workgroup(s) on measurement/reporting needed

**Workgroup prefers Intelligent Mail-based measurement**
- USPS should leverage IPC relationship
- Workgroup recommendations on alternative (external) measurement systems
- Small volume mailstreams may use different measurement systems/methodologies
- Measurement quality metrics needed (Start/Stop-the-Clock)
**New MTAC workgroup(s) on measurement/reporting needed**

**Service Performance Measurement**

## Measurement data quality access/retention recommendations
Measurement reporting recommendations
USPS should publish formal implementation time lines with milestones toward measurement systems
Interim measurement solutions (including industry systems) should be explored
External audit of measurement systems needed
Outlined potential IM adoption barriers; IM gaps

**Service Performance Measurement**

- Measurement data quality access/retention recommendations
- Measurement reporting recommendations
- USPS should publish formal implementation time lines with milestones toward measurement systems
- Interim measurement solutions (including industry systems) should be explored
- External audit of measurement systems needed
- Outlined potential IM adoption barriers; IM gaps

## Thanks to all the workgroup members – 
particularly the Subgroup Co-Chairs –
for their participation!!

*Thanks to all the workgroup members –** *
*particularly the Subgroup Co-Chairs –*
*for their participation!!*