®
PRE-MTAC
Industry Pulse Responses
February 2017
1
®
MTAC Visibility and Service Measurement
First-Class Mail
Letters
2
First-Class Mail® (Letters)
Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend
®
80%
70%
2,500
68.33% 68.98%
63.81% 65.00%
69.50% 69.28% 68.75% 69.50% 68.82%
70.93%
72.15% 71.29%
66.13%
2,000
% Excluded
50%
1,500
40%
1,000
30%
Volume in Millions
60%
20%
500
10%
0%
Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2016
Measured Volume
% In Measurement
3
First-Class Mail® (Letters)
Reasons why mail is not in measurement
®
In December 2016, 29% of Full-Service First-Class Letters were excluded
from measurement
Attributed to Mailers
Attributed to USPS / Unknown
14.75%
85.25%
Incorrect Entry
Facility
Exclusion Reason
Other
Long Haul
No Start-the-Clock
In
Measurement,
71%
% of
% of
Excluded Total*
No Start-the-Clock
39.25%
12.77%
Long Haul
35.03%
11.40%
Incorrect Entry Facility
3.67%
1.20%
Other
22.05%
7.17%
* Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result,
the sum of individual exclusion percentages (33%) is greater
than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (29%)
4
First-Class Mail® (Letters)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long Haul
Incorrect Entry
Facility
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility)
 Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field
Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and
identify root causes
•
•
•
•
Conduct interviews
Possible site visits
Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
5
First-Class Mail® (Letters)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long Haul Exclusion
Long Haul
Incorrect Entry
Facility
 Work with EAMA team
• Ingest the scan data to IV SPM database
 Finalize the CET business rules for long haul transportation
 Enhance the STC business rules for DMU verified USPS
transported volume
 Identify top opportunities DMU locations to pilot EAMA
application
 Identify stakeholders (Mailer, Field Marketing, EAMA Dev
team)
 Engage through stakeholders the top opportunity locations
• Provide an overview of EAMA
• Provide SOP
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
6
First-Class Mail® (Letters)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long Haul
Incorrect Entry
Facility
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer)
 Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry
Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify
root causes
• Conduct interviews
• Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
• Work with mailer to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
7
®
MTAC Visibility and Service Measurement
First-Class Mail
Flats
8
First-Class Mail® (Flats)
Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend
®
80%
70.79%
70%
66.78%
72.86%
70.70%
72.45% 73.59% 72.99%
35
75.92%
72.63%
68.85%
68.25% 68.76% 68.30%
30
60%
25
20
40%
15
Volume in Millions
% Excluded
50%
30%
10
20%
5
10%
0%
0
Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2016
Measured Volume
% In Measurement
9
First-Class Mail® (Flats)
Reasons why mail is not in measurement
®
In December 2016, 32% of Full-Service First-Class Flats were excluded from
measurement
Attributed to Mailers
Attributed to USPS / Unknown
Exclusion Reason
Other
Non-Unique IMb
Long Haul
14.39%
85.61%
% of
% of
Excluded Total*
No Start-the-Clock
40.74%
15.61%
Long Haul
7.06%
2.71%
Non-Unique IMb
8.80%
3.37%
Other
43.40%
16.64%
No Start-the-Clock
In
Measurement,
68%
* Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result,
the sum of individual exclusion percentages (38%) is greater
than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (32%)
10
First-Class Mail® (Flats)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long Haul
Non-Unique IMb
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility)
 Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field
Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and
identify root causes
•
•
•
•
Conduct interviews
Possible site visits
Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
11
First-Class Mail® (Flats)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long Haul Exclusion
Long Haul
Non-Unique IMb
 Work with EAMA team
• Ingest the scan data to IV SPM database
 Finalize the CET business rules for long haul transportation
 Enhance the STC business rules for DMU verified USPS
transported volume
 Identify top opportunities DMU locations to pilot EAMA
application
 Identify stakeholders (Mailer, Field Marketing, EAMA Dev
team)
 Engage through stakeholders the top opportunity locations
• Provide an overview of EAMA
• Provide SOP
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
12
First-Class Mail® (Flats)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long Haul
Non-Unique IMb
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer)
 Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry
Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify
root causes
• Conduct interviews
• Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
• Work with mailer to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
13
Full Service – Free Visibility
®
Data from 2016-10-01 to 2017-02-03
Full Service Customers Only
3,600,000
Entered at USPS
SV Unload Scan
10,359,000
Enroute Arrive Container
and Tray Scans
8,083,000
Enroute Depart Scan
for Containers and
Trays
87,188,000
Enroute Tray
Scans
New Visibility for Mailers
33 Billion
(as of January 1, 2017)
Piece level
automation scans
All IMb™ Users
14
®
MTAC Visibility and Service Measurement
Periodicals
Flats
15
Periodicals
Last Mile Impact Trend
®
Last Mile Impact Trend
Last Mile Impact (Absolute Value)
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Postal Week
Destination
End-to-End
Note: Results starting week ending 10/28/16 are based on Days Left Group (DLG) approach, whereas all prior weeks’ results are based on Last Processing Operation (LPO)
approach.
16
Periodicals (Flats)
Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend
®
80%
300
70%
66.20%
59.65%
63.04% 61.85%
66.92% 67.36%
64.52%
65.24% 65.92%
67.90%
67.74%
61.07% 61.97%
250
60%
200
40%
150
30%
100
20%
50
10%
0%
0
Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2016
Measured Volume
% In Measurement
17
Volume in Millions
% Excluded
50%
Periodicals (Flats)
Reasons why mail is not in measurement
®
In December 2016, 32% of Full-Service Periodicals Flats were excluded from
measurement
Attributed to Mailers
Attributed to USPS / Unknown
Exclusion Reason
Other
Inaccurate
Scheduled Ship
Date
Long Haul
In
Measurement,
68%
19.81%
80.19%
% of
% of
Excluded Total*
No Start-the-Clock
11.88%
4.38%
Long Haul
4.11%
1.51%
Inaccurate Scheduled Ship Date
4.48%
1.65%
Other
79.53%
29.31%
* Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result,
the sum of individual exclusion percentages (37%) is greater
than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (32%)
No Start-the-Clock
18
Periodicals (Flats)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long Haul
Inaccurate
Scheduled Ship Date
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility)
 Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field
Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and
identify root causes
•
•
•
•
Conduct interviews
Possible site visits
Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
19
Periodicals (Flats)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long Haul Exclusion
Long Haul
Inaccurate
Scheduled Ship Date
 Work with EAMA team
• Ingest the scan data to IV SPM database
 Finalize the CET business rules for long haul transportation
 Enhance the STC business rules for DMU verified USPS
transported volume
 Identify top opportunities DMU locations to pilot EAMA
application
 Identify stakeholders (Mailer, Field Marketing, EAMA Dev
team)
 Engage through stakeholders the top opportunity locations
• Provide an overview of EAMA
• Provide SOP
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
20
Periodicals (Flats)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long Haul
Inaccurate
Scheduled Ship Date
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer)
 Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry
Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify
root causes
• Conduct interviews
• Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
• Work with mailer to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
21
Full Service – Free Visibility
®
Data from 2016-10-01 to 2017-02-03
Full Service Customers Only
3,600,000
Entered at USPS
SV Unload Scan
10,359,000
Enroute Arrive Container
and Tray Scans
8,083,000
Enroute Depart Scan
for Containers and
Trays
87,188,000
Enroute Tray
Scans
New Visibility for Mailers
33 Billion
(as of January 1, 2017)
Piece level
automation scans
All IMb™ Users
22
®
MTAC Visibility and Service Measurement
Marketing Mail
Letters
23
Marketing Mail* (Letters)
Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend
®
90%
80%
4,000
78.10% 76.81% 77.81% 77.68%
76.33% 77.15%
75.69% 76.27% 76.86% 74.71% 76.32%
73.61%
80.06%
70%
3,500
3,000
60%
50%
2,000
40%
Volume in Millions
% Excluded
2,500
1,500
30%
1,000
20%
500
10%
0%
0
Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2016
Measured Volume
Note: Prior to FY17 Q2, Marketing Mail was referred to as Standard Mail®.
% In Measurement
24
Marketing Mail* (Letters)
Reasons why mail is not in measurement
®
In December 2016, 20% of Full-Service Periodicals Flats were excluded from
measurement
Attributed to Mailers
Attributed to USPS / Unknown
Non-Unique IMb
Invalid Entry Point
for Entry Discount
(FAST MDF)
Exclusion Reason
Other
No Start-the-Clock
In
Measurement,
80%
24.02%
75.98%
% of
% of
Excluded Total*
No Start-the-Clock
50.32%
11.17%
Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount
(FAST MDF)
9.89%
2.20%
Non-Unique IMb
2.97%
0.66%
Other
36.82%
8.17%
* Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result,
the sum of individual exclusion percentages (22%) is greater
than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (20%)
25
Marketing Mail (Letters)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Invalid Entry Point for
Entry Discount
Non-Unique IMb
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility)
 Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field
Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and
identify root causes
•
•
•
•
Conduct interviews
Possible site visits
Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
26
Marketing Mail (Letters)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long
Haul
Exclusion
Invalid
Entry
Point
for Entry Discount
Non-Unique IMb
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer)
 Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry
Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify
root causes
• Conduct interviews
• Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
• Work with mailer to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
27
Marketing Mail (Letters)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Invalid Entry Point
for Entry Discount
Non-Unique IMb
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer)
 Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry
Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify
root causes
• Conduct interviews
• Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
• Work with mailer to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
28
®
MTAC Visibility and Service Measurement
Marketing Mail
Flats
29
Marketing Mail* (Flats)
Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend
®
80%
1,200
70.43%
70%
72.41%
73.77%
71.17%
70.44%
71.93% 72.45%
67.27%
73.94%
70.64%
70.10% 69.42%
63.26%
1,000
60%
800
40%
600
Volume in Millions
% Excluded
50%
30%
400
20%
200
10%
0%
0
Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2016
Measured Volume
Note: Prior to FY17 Q2, Marketing Mail was referred to as Standard Mail®.
% In Measurement
30
Marketing Mail* (Flats)
Reasons why mail is not in measurement
®
In December 2016, 26% of Full-Service Periodicals Flats were excluded from
measurement
Attributed to Mailers
Attributed to USPS / Unknown
Invalid Container
Level for Entry
Invalid Entry Point
for Entry Discount
(FAST MDF)
Exclusion Reason
Other
No Start-the-Clock
In
Measurement,
74%
30.88%
69.12%
% of
% of
Excluded Total*
No Start-the-Clock
15.43%
4.79%
Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount
(FAST MDF)
10.50%
3.26%
Invalid Container Level for Entry
8.45%
2.62%
Other
65.62%
20.37%
* Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result,
the sum of individual exclusion percentages (31%) is greater
than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (26%)
31
Marketing Mail (Flats)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Invalid Entry Point for
Entry Discount
Invalid Container
Level for Entry
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility)
 Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field
Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and
identify root causes
•
•
•
•
Conduct interviews
Possible site visits
Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
32
Marketing Mail (Flats)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Long
Haul
Exclusion
Invalid
Entry
Point
for Entry Discount
Invalid Container
Level for Entry
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer)
 Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry
Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify
root causes
• Conduct interviews
• Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
• Work with mailer to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
33
Marketing Mail (Flats)
Exclusion Reduction Plan
®
No Start-the-Clock
Invalid Entry Point
for Entry Discount
Invalid Container
Level for Entry
 Identify top opportunities (Mailer)
 Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry
Payment Tech)
 Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify
root causes
• Conduct interviews
• Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution
• Work with mailer to resolve root causes
 Monitor weekly performance
• Trend out the weekly performance
• Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results
34
Marketing Mail* (Flats)
Last Mile Impact Trend
®
Last Mile Impact Trend
Last Mile Impact (Absolute Value)
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Postal Week
Destination
End-to-End
Note: Results starting week ending 10/28/16 are based on Days Left Group (DLG) approach, whereas all prior weeks’ results are based on Last Processing Operation (LPO)
approach.
Note: Prior to FY17 Q2, Marketing Mail was referred to as Standard Mail®.
35
Full Service – Free Visibility
®
Data from 2016-10-01 to 2017-02-03
Full Service Customers Only
3,600,000
Entered at USPS
SV Unload Scan
10,359,000
Enroute Arrive Container
and Tray Scans
8,083,000
Enroute Depart Scan
for Containers and
Trays
87,188,000
Enroute Tray
Scans
New Visibility for Mailers
33 Billion
(as of January 1, 2017)
Piece level
automation scans
All IMb™ Users
36
®
Bundle Visibility
37
Full-Service Bundle Visibility
®
P&DC
APPS/APBS
Entry/Container
Unload Scan
Bundle to
Container
(SV/IMDAS)
Container
Load Scan
SV Assign/Close Scans for Nesting
(SV)
Data
Mailer
Visibility
IV
Delivery
Unit
Out for
Delivery
Arrived
at Unit
(IMDAS)
Container
Distributed
(IMDAS)
Curtailed
Inventory
Delivered
(Logical based on GPS)
(IMDAS)
38
Visibility Improvement
®
Piece, Bundle,
and Container
IMb Tracing
Improved
operational
compliance
82%
45%
Scans leveraged
to provide
comprehensive
visibility
Double digit
visibility increase
in IMb Tracing
events
Identified
opportunities for
improved
operational
compliance to
increase visibility
Pilot mailer
visibility increased
from 45% to 82%!
39
Full-Service Bundle Visibility
®
P&DC
IV Release 2.1 Bundle Visibility
Enhancements:
APPS/APBS
a) Logical Out for Delivery event (OpCode
516) for bundles
Entry/Container
Unload Scan
Bundle to
Container
b) Assumed
Logical Out for Delivery
event
(SV/IMDAS)
SV Assign/Close Scans for Nesting
(OpCode 516) for bundle pieces
Data
c) Logical Delivery event (OpCode 517) for
bundle pieces that received
Logical Out
IV
for Delivery event
Container
Load Scan
(SV)
Mailer
Visibility
c
a, b
Out for
Delivery
Delivery
Unit
Arrived
at Unit
(IMDAS)
Container
Distributed
(IMDAS)
Curtailed
Inventory
Delivered
(Logical based on GPS)
(IMDAS)
40
®
Periodicals and News - Manual Sortation Visibility
Proof Of Concept
41
Periodicals and News
®
Background
Purpose
Improve visibility of Full Service newspapers worked in manual operations
Solution
Vetted collaboratively with Network Operations - OPERATIONS INTEGRATION & SUPPORT
Developed process that utilizes SV & IMD devices to scan containers, tubs, and bundles at
manual bullpens, assuming:
•
•
•
•
Full Service Mailings
Acceptance Process
Readable Barcodes
SV Load & Unload Scans
Proof-Of-Concept initially utilized IMD (Delivery Unit) scanning solution understood to be nonoptimal but was first-to-market
42
Periodicals and News
Proof-of-Concept
®
Locale
Mail (No
Plant
Dist.)
Delivery Unit
P&DC
Main News Belt
Secondary Bullpen
43
Or
Acceptance Postal One
Or Unload
Rec.
(IMD)
99S
Load
Scan
(IMD)
Trailer
Depart
(IMD)
Tub
Unload
(IMD)
Trailer
Arrive
(SV)
Container
Unload
Scan
(SV)
Container
Stage
Scan
(SV)
Wall
Container Container
Tub
Barcode Assign Distributed Distributed
Scan
Scan
Scan
Scan
(IMD)
(IMD)
(SV)
(IMD)
Acceptance at DU to Arrival at News Belt
Bundle
Enroute
Scan
(IMD)
Container
Close
Scan
(SV)
Wall
Barcode
Scan
(IMD)
Wall
Barcode
Scan
(IMD)
Container
Distributed
Scan
(IMD)
Wall
Barcode
Scan
(IMD)
Container
Load
Scan
(SV)
Trailer
Depart
(SV)
Distributed to Close
99H Close to Distributed
Proof of Concept
99P Close to Container Load & Depart
Successful test even though assumptions did not prove out (Containerization, readability, turn around flows).
• Ability to identify mail not processed on Day 0.
• Calculated Cycle Times.
• Creating a Processed-by-Cutoff Time Exception Report.
Next Steps
• Assess and test technology alternatives – currently fielded technology (SV, Manual Scanning Appliance).
• Develop, choose alternative, pilot and field solution
• Manual casing – visibility solution development
• Address lessons learned from initial Proof-Of-Concept test
• Full Service Compliance and Verification – Readability, Containerization, Labeling, mail/labels matching eDoc
• Flow to local mail – may not get processed in plant
• Assess longer term test technology alternatives – Lapel-style scanners, Google Glass, mobile apps.
Scan Not Captured
Graphic depicts scan events at all possible handoffs
43
®
Intelligent Mail® Package Barcode
Compliance
44
IMpb Compliance Assessments
®
Current
Effective February 1
Effective July 2017
Verifications and Thresholds
Verifications and Thresholds
Verifications and Thresholds
Some Verifications Assessable
Barcode
99%
Address
98%
Shipping File
97%
Barcode Quality
Measure Only
Address Quality
Measure Only
Manifest Quality
Measure Only
Some Verifications Assessable
Barcode
95%
Address
98%
Shipping File
91%
Barcode Quality
Measure Only
Address Quality
Measure Only
Manifest Quality
Measure Only
All Verifications Assessable
Barcode Quality
*95%
Address Quality
*89%
Manifest Quality
*91%
*July 2017 thresholds agreed upon with MTAC WG #178
Measuring now until July 2017
IMpb Barcode Address or 11-digit DPV Manifest v1.6 or higher
Effective July 2017 Verification Details
Barcode Quality
Invalid MID in tracking number
Duplicate barcodes on packages
Address Quality
Manifest Quality
Missing secondary address information
Unable to match address to ZIP+4
Missing street number
Invalid Primary street number
eVs only: Address received before AAU w/o
Shipping partner event; manifest received
before midnight if Shipping Partner received
with address
Shipping
Version 1.6Services
or higher File
Facility mismatch between scan and manifest
Invalid PO ZIP code
Invalid payment account
Invalid method of payment
eVs only: Manifest received before AAU w/o
Shipping partner event; manifest received
before midnight if Shipping Partner received
with address
Address or 11-digit DPV
45
IMpb Compliance Report Codes
®
IMpb Compliance Codes
Simplify IMpb Compliance Categories to Quality Metrics Only
Release Date: July,2017
Original IMpb Compliance
Report Codes:
SF/UN
Report Code
SHIPPING SERVICES FILE
VERSION 1.(x) NOT VALID &
NO SHIPPING SERVICES FILE
BF
Report Code
BARCODE FORMAT - NOT IMpb
DZ
Report Code
DEST DEL ADDR
OR
11 DIGIT DESTINATION ZIP
CODE NOT INCLUDED
IMpb Quality Compliance
Report Codes:
MQ
Report Code
MQ - Mail Piece has Poor
Manifest Data Quality
February 9, 2017
BQ
Report Code
BQ - Mail Piece has Poor
Barcode Quality
AQ
Report Code
AQ - Mail Piece has Poor
Address Quality
46
IMpb Compliance Performance
Current Categories
®
January 2017 IMpb Metrics
Product
% IMPB
Barcode
Threshold
% Address
and/or 11 Digit
ZIP Code
Threshold
95%
98%
98.30% 98.33%
95%
98%
91%
% SSF or
Higher
Threshold
Threshold
Threshold
Threshold
91%
99.70%
98.78%
96.59%
Parcel Select Lightweight
(LW)
99.99%
98.66%
97.87%
Parcel Select (PS)
99.94%
98.96%
98.73%
First-Class (FC)
99.52%
99.57%
Priority Mail (PM)
98.88%
98.69%
98.71%
91.98%
98.44%
Bound Printed Matter (BB)
99.95%
96.30%
90.87%
Media Mail (BS)
Standard Mail Marketing
(S2)
99.82%
99.75%
98.35%
100.00%
Standard Mail (SA)
100.00%
99.26% 91.85% 89.72%
97.02%
77.74%
Priority Mail Express (EX)
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
USPS Retail Ground (BP)
58.38%
99.48%
96.25%
Library Rate (BL)
98.19%
97.67%
82.62%
Grand total
99.70%
98.78%
97.75%
99.97%
97.24%
Address
Timeliness
Packages
With IMpb
Address
and/or
11-Digit DPV
ZIP Code
97.75%
Manifest
Timeliness
Shipping
Services File
v1.6 or
higher
Source: USPS Product Tracking & Reporting (PTR)
February 9, 2017
47
IMpb Compliance Quality Metrics –
Simplified List
®
Address Quality
Shipping Services File
Quality
94.13%
94.20%
Jan 2017 ACTUAL
TARGET: 89%
Measures percent of addresses* with
enough information to validate to
the unique exact 11-digit DPV ZIP
Code when matched against the
AMS Database.
Benefits:
•
Operational efficiency
•
Enables personalized features
such as My USPS
•
Avoids operational costs (Manual
scheme lookup/PRES Keying)
•
Improves deliverability
99.47%
Jan 2017 ACTUAL
TARGET: 91%
Jan 2017 ACTUAL
TARGET: 95%
Measures percent of manifest records
that pass key package level detail
validations mitigating potential errors
when processed in the PTR Database.
Measures percent of tracking
numbers that pass key validations for
format and uniqueness* without
errors or warnings when manifests
are processed in the PTR Database
and physically scanned.
Benefits:
• Supports timely postage payment
and revenue assurance
•
Enhances tracking and customer
experience
•
Provides digital awareness of
packages that will be delivered by
USPS
Benefits:
• Critical for visibility and the
customer experience
•
Creates the digital trail
•
Facilitates better workload
planning
Supports payment and revenue
assurance
•
Facilitates operational efficiencies
•
Eliminates need for manual counts
•
•
Enables better analytics, insights,
decisions
Foundational for current and future
product offerings
•
February 9, 2017
Barcode Quality
48
IMpb Compliance Quality Metrics
®
Top 6 Issues January 2017
4.00%
ENTRY FACILITY
MISMATCH - ENTRY
FACILITY DOES NOT
MATCH MANIFEST FILE
.79%
INVALID
METHOD OF
PAYMENT
.52%
INVALID PO OF
ACCOUNT ZIP
CODE
MANIFEST QUALITY
NON-COMPLIANCE
0.49%
INVALID
PAYMENT
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
% of Total
Manifest*
.36%
INVALID
MAILER ID
0.17%
DUPLICATE
TRACKING
NUMBER
BARCODE QUALITY
NON-COMPLIANCE
*Competitive Products Only
February 9, 2017
49
IMpb Address Quality
®
21,580,527
Packages w/Address Quality Issues*
January 2017
39.87%
26.25%
5.87%
20.64%
13.24%
Addresses Unable to Resolve to Unique 11Digit Delivery Point Validated (DPV)
ZIP Code Percent of Address Quality Volume*
8,603,176
5,664,772
4,455,266
2,857,313
Missing
Secondary
Information
(i.e., no
Apartment or
Suite Number)
Missing Street
Number
Unable to
Match ZIP+4
Code
Invalid
Primary
Street
Number
Packages with insufficient address information 1.08%
*Competitive Products Only
50
IMpb Quality Compliance Validations
Reporting Period (Jan 1, 2016 - Jan 31, 2016)
®
Address Quality (AQ):
4 Validation Combinations
DPV
DPV Footnote
Description
Manifest Quality (MQ):
4 Validation Combinations
PTR
July 2016 % of Total % of Total
Indicato
Volume Volume AQ Errors
r
AAN1
Missing
Secondary
Information
(i.e., no
Apartment or
Suite Number
8,603,176
2.34%
33.83%
AQ
A1M1
Missing Street
Number
5,664,772
1.54%
22.28%
AQ
Unable to Match
A1
Address to a
4,455,266
ZIP+4 Code
Invalid Primary
AAM3
2,857,313
Street Number
DZ
No Address
3,848,569
1.21%
17.52%
PTR
Warning
#
1
AQ
0.78%
11.24%
AQ
1.05%
15.13%
AQ
Barcode Quality (BQ):
2 Validation Combinations
66
50
February 9, 2017
0.17%
32.61%
BQ
1,322,531 0.36%
67.39%
BQ
14,695,342
% of Total
% of Total
PTR
MQ Errors
Volume
Indicator
4.00%
68.98%
MQ
136
Invalid PO of account
1,898,829
Zip Code
0.52%
8.91%
MQ
1535
Invalid Payment
account number
1,795,270
0.49%
8.43%
MQ
193
Invalid Method of
Payment
2,914,189
0.79%
13.68%
MQ
5,918,620
1.61%
21.74%
MQ
TBD (UN)
Or
Piece never received
a Manifest
•
639,919
MQ Entry Facility
Mismatch - Entry
Facility Does Not
Match Manifest File
July 2016
Volume
IMPB: MAIL PIECE WAS
UNMANIFESTED AT THE
TIME OF AAU
PTR
PTR
July 2016
% of % of Total
PTR
Warning Error/Warning
Volume Volume BQ Errors Indicator
#
Message
Duplicate
Tracking
Numbers on
Multiple
Packages
Invalid MID in
PIC
PTR Error/Warning
Message
Secondary information address quality measurement
– will be assessed beginning July 2017
51
®
IMpb Compliance Quality Metrics
IMpb Quality Target Thresholds
Competitive Products* Only
Actual Performance
IMpb Quality
Compliance Category
Destination Delivery
Address (AQ)
Shipping Services File
(MQ)
IMpb Barcode
(BQ)
Target Threshold
Dec
2016
Jan
2017
Jul
2017
Top 4 AQ
94.61%
94.13%
89%
Top 4 AQ + Projected Merger DZ
(Start July 1, 2017)
93.54%
93.08%
Difference
-1.07%
-1.05%
Top 4 MQ
94.93%
94.20%
Top 4 MQ + Projected Merger UN
(Start July 1, 2017)
93.04%
92.59%
Difference
-1.89%
-1.61%
Top 2 BQ
99.16%
99.47%
Jan 2018
TBD
91%
94%
95%
98%
52
MTAC Pulse of Industry Call:
IMpb Latency Issue
®
After reviewing all the labels being questioned below, USPS was able to
determine that all five labels fall under the same scenario…
The POSTING_DATETIME_07 being displayed above is the date/time the event
posted to the PTR Database, NOT THE TIME THE 07 EVENT OCCURRED
The IMpb logic that assess Manifest Timeliness compares when PTR Posted
the MA Event to the Local Event Time of the 07 (AAU).
LABEL_ID
92748760000286000028634
874
9374459701501245970142
9274811356327311356326
9274834022883903402288
9361226416492264164922
POSTING_DATETIME_07
POSTING_DATETIME_MA
11-16-2016 00:27:51
11-16-2016 00:46:46
11-15-2016 00:43:47
11-29-2016 00:07:44
11-12-2016 01:20:51
11-16-2016 03:45:40
11-16-2016 03:45:34
11-15-2016 08:03:43
11-29-2016 04:25:40
11-12-2016 04:21:45
IMPB_COMPLIANCE_COD BEFORE_MIDNIGHT_FLA O7_EVENT_DATETIM
E
G
E
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
11-15-2016 22:15:33
11-15-2016 22:25:27
11-14-2016 22:24:05
11-28-2016 21:58:38
11-11-2016 23:05:35
53
®
MTAC Pulse of Industry Call:
Issues
IMpb Compliance Review
92748760000286000028634874
The local Date Time of the 07 Event occurred the prior day of
when PTR received and processed the MA event
11-15-2016 22:15:33 (07) < 11-16-2016 03:45:40 (MA)
54
®
MTAC Pulse of Industry Call:
Issues
IMpb Compliance Review
9374459701501245970142
The local Date Time of the 07 Event occurred the prior day of
when PTR received and processed the MA event
11-15-2016 22:25:27 (07) < 11-16-2016 03:45:34 (MA)
55
®
MTAC Pulse of Industry Call:
Issues
IMpb Compliance Review
9274811356327311356326
The local Date Time of the 07 Event occurred the prior day of
when PTR received and processed the MA event
11-14-2016 22:24:05 (07) < 11-15-2016 08:03:43 (MA)
56
®
MTAC Pulse of Industry Call:
Issues
IMpb Compliance Review
9274834022883903402288
The local Date Time of the 07 Event occurred the prior day of
when PTR received and processed the MA event
11-28-2016 21:58:38 (07) < 11-29-2016 04:25:40 (MA)
57
®
MTAC Pulse of Industry Call:
Issues
IMpb Compliance Review
9361226416492264164922
The local Date Time of the 07 Event occurred the prior day of
when PTR received and processed the MA event
11-11-2016 23:05:35 (07) < 11-12-2016 04:21:45 (MA)
58
®
IMpb Updates
The Workgroup to discuss the Address Quality thresholds for July
2018 will reconvene July 2017.
PTR will begin conducting IMpb Quality Compliance Webinars
(Proposed start date March 2017).
 Webinars will serve as a way to notify the industry of the upcoming
changes to the IMpb Quality Requirements that will be implemented
starting July 2017.
 Proposed Topics
•
•
•
•
•
IMpb Compliance Quality Metrics – Overview
IMpb Quality Reports
IMpb Compliance Deep Drive – Barcode Quality
IMpb Compliance Deep Drive – Address Quality
IMpb Compliance Deep Drive – Manifest Quality (SSF)
March 10 will be the due date to have the draft FRN Proposed Rule
for IMpb Quality published on PostalPro/RIBBS until the proposed
rule can be officially posted in the Federal Register
59
®
Scan
Event
Stop The Clock Tracking Events
Description
60
60
Agenda
®
Informed Visibility® (IV®)
Pulse of the Industry Questions
Mail Class Pulse Reports:
Standard Mail
Periodicals Mail
First-Class Mail (FCM)
Functional Pulse Reports:
Mail Prep and Entry (Operations)
Enterprise Analytics and Data Usage
61
®
IV Mail Tracking & Reporting Status
What is the status of IV Mail Tracking & Reporting?
 Preparing for IMb Tracing® and PostalOne!® container and
handling unit transitioning to IV
 Conducting comparative data validation between IV and legacy
systems
 Meeting weekly with MTAC UG4 to review and discuss MTR
functionality
 Executing Communications Educational Awareness Plan
• Developing external messages, training curriculum, User Guides and
Customer On-boarding Process.
 Completed development for release 2 roles and permissions and
are currently testing functionality
 Planning for releases 3 and beyond
62
IV Mail Tracking & Reporting Timeline
®
as of 02.13.17
What is the new timeline?
Release
Scope
Release 1.0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Release 2.0
• Roles and permissions management
Apr. 2017
Release 2.1
• Bundle Visibility – Logical Out for Delivery Events
• Logical Delivery Events for mail that receive Logical Out for Delivery
Event
• Assumed events for nested mail objects based on bundle handling
events
Apr. 2017
Release 2.2
• Assumed events for nested mail objects based on container and
handling units
May 2017
Release 3.0
• Start-the-Clock Visibility
• Phase 2 of Web-Enabled Mail Tracking
May 2017
Piece Visibility – Automation Scans (IMb Tracing)
Container and Tray Visibility
Bundle Visibility – Automation Handling Events
Phase 1 of Web-Enabled Mail Tracking
Phase 1 of Flexible Data Provisioning
Flexible Data Delegation
Piece Visibility – Logical Delivery Events
Deployment**
Mar. 2017
Additional releases for FY17 are still being planned.
**Dates are contingent on pilot results.
63
®
IV Mail Tracking Visibility Requirements
What are the visibility requirements for certain types of data?
IV Release 1 Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects
Mail Object
Pieces (letters
and flats)
Bundles
Actual Handling Event

Visibility provided to MID on piece (FullService not required)

Note: For IMb-barcoded pieces that use
the Reply Mail ZIP® construct, IV provides
visibility to the CRIDs who have that routing
code associated to them.

Visibility provided to MID on piece of pieces
within a bundle (Full-Service not required)

Visibility provided to Mail Owner and Mail
Preparer of pieces within a handling unit
who have at least 1 Full-Service piece in the
handling unit*
Visibility provided to Mail Owner and Mail
Preparer of pieces within a container who
have at least 1 Full-Service piece in the
container*
Handling units

Containers
Logical Handling Event

Visibility provided to MID on piece if
piece is Full-Service OR has a Reply
Mail STID

Note: For IMb-barcoded pieces that
use the Reply Mail ZIP construct, IV
provides visibility to the CRIDs who
have that routing code associated to
them.

Future Release

Future Release

Future Release
*Electronic documentation (eDoc) is required to determine if pieces within a container, handling unit, or bundle are
Full-Service as well as determine the Mail Owner, Mail Preparer, and eDoc Submitter of the pieces.
64
IV Mail Tracking Visibility Requirements
Continued…
®
What are the visibility requirements for certain types of data?
DRAFT Future Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects
Mail Object Actual Handling Event

Pieces
(letters and
flats)

Assumed Handling Event†

Visibility provided to MID on
piece and Mail Owner* (FullService not required)
Note: For IMb-barcoded pieces
that use the Reply Mail ZIP
construct, IV provides visibility to

the CRIDs who have that routing
code associated to them.


Bundles
Visibility provided to MID on
Piece and Mail Owner* of pieces
within a bundle (Full-Service not
required)
Logical Handling Event
Visibility provided to MID on piece and Mail Owner* if
piece is:
o Full-Service OR
o Not eligible for Full-Service OR
o Residual mail‡ OR
o Reply Mail
Note: For IMb-barcoded pieces that use the Reply Mail
ZIP construct, IV provides visibility to the CRIDs who have
that routing code associated to them.
Visibility provided to MID on Piece and Mail Owner* of
pieces within a bundle when at least one of their pieces
within the bundle is:
o Full-Service OR
o Not eligible for Full-Service OR
o Residual mail‡ OR
o Reply Mail
* eDoc is required to determine if pieces within a container, handling unit, or bundle are Full-Service or eligible for FullService as well as determine the Mail Owner, Mail Preparer, and eDoc Submitter of the pieces.
† Assumed handling events are dependent upon mailer eDocs (Mail.dat® or Mail.XML eDoc) for mailer containers,
handling units, or bundles and Postal Service nesting information for Postal Service containers and handling units.
‡ Visibility of residual mail is only provided if the eDoc Submitter CRID had at least one month in the past three months
in which 95% or higher of their Full-Service eligible pieces were mailed as Full-Service.
65
IV Mail Tracking Visibility Requirements
Continued…
®
What are the visibility requirements for certain types of data?
DRAFT Future Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects…continued
Mail Object Actual Handling Event

Handling
Units

Assumed Handling Event†
Logical Handling Event
Visibility provided to Mail Owner, Mail Preparer*, and MID on Piece of pieces within a handling
unit when at least one of their pieces within the handling unit is:
o Full-Service OR
o Not eligible for Full-Service OR
o Residual mail‡ OR
o Reply Mail
Visibility provided to eDoc Submitter* and MID on tray when at least one of the pieces within
the handling unit is:
o Full-Service OR
o Not eligible for Full-Service OR
o Residual mail‡ OR
o Reply Mail
* eDoc is required to determine if pieces within a container, handling unit, or bundle are Full-Service or eligible for FullService as well as determine the Mail Owner, Mail Preparer, and eDoc Submitter of the pieces.
† Assumed handling events are dependent upon mailer eDocs (Mail.dat® or Mail.XML eDoc) for mailer containers,
handling units, or bundles and Postal Service nesting information for Postal Service containers and handling units.
‡ Visibility of residual mail is only provided if the eDoc Submitter CRID had at least one month in the past three months
in which 95% or higher of their Full-Service eligible pieces were mailed as Full-Service.
66
IV Mail Tracking Visibility Requirements
Continued…
®
What are the visibility requirements for certain types of data?
DRAFT Future Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects…continued
Mail Object Actual Handling Event

Containers

Assumed Handling Event†
Logical Handling Event
Visibility provided to Mail Owner, Mail Preparer*, and MID on Piece of pieces within a container
when at least one of their pieces within the container is:
o Full-Service OR
o Not eligible for Full-Service OR
o Residual mail‡ OR
o Reply Mail
Visibility provided to eDoc Submitter*, MID on container, and FAST Scheduler for appointment
associated to container when at least one of the pieces within the container is:
o Full-Service OR
o Not eligible for Full-Service OR
o Residual mail‡ OR
o Reply Mail
* eDoc is required to determine if pieces within a container, handling unit, or bundle are Full-Service or eligible for FullService as well as determine the Mail Owner, Mail Preparer, and eDoc Submitter of the pieces.
† Assumed handling events are dependent upon mailer eDocs (Mail.dat® or Mail.XML eDoc) for mailer containers,
handling units, or bundles and Postal Service nesting information for Postal Service containers and handling units.
‡ Visibility of residual mail is only provided if the eDoc Submitter CRID had at least one month in the past three months
in which 95% or higher of their Full-Service eligible pieces were mailed as Full-Service.
67
®
Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects
● Visibility of logical handling events and assumed handling events will require
that the mailpiece meet one of the following criteria:
 Full-Service mailpiece




Mailpiece is associated to an eDoc and is Full-Service
Not eligible for Full-Service
● Mailpiece is associated to an eDoc and has a rate category that is not
eligible for Full-Service
Residual mail
● Mailpiece is associated to an eDoc where the eDoc Submitter CRID has
had at least one month in which the number of Full-Service pieces divided
by the total number of Full-Service eligible pieces is 95% or higher.
Qualifying eDoc Submitter CRIDs will be re-evaluated quarterly.
Reply mail
● Mailpiece has an IMb that uses a reply mail STID
Full Rate
● Mailpiece is paid at full rate
●
● Visibility of logical handling events and assumed handling events for bundles
will require that at least one mailpiece within the bundle that the MID/CRID
has visibility of meets the above criteria
● Visibility of actual handling events, logical handling events and assumed
handling events for containers and handling units will require that at least one
mailpiece within the container or handling unit that the MID/CRID has visibility
of meets the above criteria
68
®
IV Mail Tracking & Reporting
There is industry concern regarding a successful implementation
of IV given the many false starts and issues encountered so far.
What is the status of the IV pilot?
 USPS is ensuring that the IV system is performing optimally prior to
offering this solution to customers.
 We are committed to providing a quality product that ultimately
helps improve the service offering of mailers.
 USPS is installing additional hardware to ensure optimal
performance for customers.
 With IV's ease of use and flexibility, we anticipate an increase in
the number of users over the legacy systems. Additional hardware
being added to ensure support of increased volume.
 The pilot start is on the horizon while we await completion of
internal validation and testing and installation of additional
hardware.
69
®
IMb Tracing®
What is being done to ensure that IMb Tracing will not fail during
the transition period?
 USPS will continue to monitor and support the IMb Tracing system
during the transition to IV.
 We are aware of the performance issues which caused scan
latency for customers. Marked improvements were observed
following driver updates.
 We are continuing to look for ways to improve performance
during this transition period.
70
®
IV Mail Tracking & Reporting
What additional events will IV provide?
 In addition to Actual Handling Events, IV will provide Assumed and Logical
Handling Events.
 An Assumed Handling Event is an implied scan of a nested mailpiece,
bundle, handling unit, or container. These events will be created for nested
mail when a mail aggregate receives an event.
 Assumed Handling Events for mail that is nested by mailers to containers,
handling units, and bundles will be implemented in Release 2.1.
 Assumed Handling Events for mail that is nested to trailers or postal
containers or handling units will be implemented in a future release. For
example, this may provide Assumed Handling Events when a trailer
receives an arrival event.
 A Logical Handling Event is any other implied event based on business
rules.
 There are two planned logical handling events so far:
• Logical Delivery Events will be implemented as part of R1
• Logical Out for Delivery Events will be implemented as part of R 2.1
71
®
IV Internal Service
Performance Measurement
How is Internal Service Performance Measurement (SPM)
Sampling Randomized?
 Randomness probability is proportional to size, with the size based
on expected number of mailpieces to be delivered at an address.
 The number of pieces also takes in to account the probability of a
particular sampling group, which is based on class and shape, to
be delivered on that day.
 Address type, rate, and presort are not a factor.
 For carriers, there is a limitation for how many samples are
scheduled for each delivery route, route per week, and quarter.
This way carrier workloads are not impacted. Randomness is not
impacted despite the limitation.
72
®
IV Internal Service
Performance Measurement
Is there potential for intentional data collection to troubleshoot
service issues and distinguish between SPM data capture and
troubleshooting data capture?
 The capability of "Operational Sampling: Delivery Unit/route
specific sampling Requests for Operational Visibility," is a future
enhancement.
 This allows for sampling requests to be from a specific route or
addresses serviced out of a Delivery Unit. However, this data will
not be used in the calculation used for official measurement.
73
®
IV Internal Service
Performance Measurement
How will USPS use Internal SPM to identify under-performing
service areas (pieces) and how will this information be leveraged
to improve service?
 IV provides daily sampling data to operations in the form of a Last
Mile Diagnostics report allowing the field to see the results of all
usable samples at a level of detail that was not previously
available.
 SPM reports provide detailed data showing the date, office, mail
shape, mail class, and route level. This information enables USPS
Operations to identify where the last operation occurred; thus,
allowing Operations to identify areas for service improvement.
 The combination of tools and robust near real-time reporting
allows Delivery Units and plants to maximize their operating
efficiency. This insight is very powerful and will allow USPS to make
considerable improvements in a short amount of time.
74
®
IV Mail Inventory & Predictive Workloads
The Industry foresees that more agile communication updates at a
container-level will likely be needed between the Industry and USPS to
realize potential of Predictive Workflow and Inventory from greater
accuracy of information. Where should this discussion begin as
development will be needed for both the Industry and USPS?
 The ability to make timely decisions on how to handle the mail to meet
service standards based on the near real-time conditions of the mail
facility will benefit not only the USPS, but mailers as well.
 Discussions have begun and we are requesting for coordination with the
industry to promote information sharing. We would like for mailers to
provide:
• Electronic documentation (eDoc) that will be coupled with postal scan
information to show on-hand and expected volumes for mail processing facilities
and delivery units.
• Information on work-sharing done by the mailer, including receiving advanced
information on the count of containers, handling units and pieces. This will allow
IV to predict the end-to-end mail flow of received mail pieces.
• Advanced information on the nesting of pieces to presorted bundles and trays
and the nesting of these bundles and trays to presorted containers.
• Advanced information on the nesting of parcels to presorted sacks or containers.
• Assignment of containers with their nesting information to specific FAST
appointments
75
®
IV Mail Tracking & Reporting
What data validation is being performed by USPS HQ
management to monitor the accuracy of Logical Delivery Events
(LDEs) that will now be supplied to mailers via the IV platform?
 Validations we have performed:
• Pieces that have the Operation Codes 146, 538, 918, 919 and an Anticipated
Date of Delivery (ADD) are receiving a LDE, when appropriate ZIP+4 triggers are
available
• LDE Delivery Mode (On-Street, PO Box, Delivery Unit Caller Service) are being
determined accurately based on the Delivery ZIP Types (Firm, Rural, PO Box,
Street, High Rise, General Delivery)
 Below are metrics we are continuing to monitor:
• Coverage of ZIP+4 triggers used to generate On-Street LDE
• Coverage of 5-Digit ZIPs for PO Box Distribution Complete scans used to generate
PO Box LDE
• Coverage of ZIP+4s for generated LDE
• List of eligible piece scans in our LDE Inventory (valid Operation Code, ADD,
Delivery ZIP Type) that are receiving an LDE
• LDE volumes by scan date and hour-of-day
76
IV Mail Tracking & Reporting
Logical Delivery Events
®
Provide an understanding of how and when Logical Delivery Events
and time stamps will take place for data in IV for different address
types.
Criteria for creating Logical Delivery Events

The table below describes the criteria IV uses to add a mailpiece to inventory for delivery
based on the last expected processing operation as well as the trigger criteria and time
used for the logical delivery event. The criteria differ based on the type of delivery:
Inventory and Trigger Criteria for Logical Delivery Events
Trigger Criteria and Time
Used for Logical Delivery
Event
Delivery Scenario
Inventory Criteria
On-street
Carrier device enters
geofence on the Anticipated
Mailpiece received processing scan
with one of the following opcodes: 146, Delivery Date (ADD) for the
associated ZIP+4
538, 918, or 919
PO Box
OR
Has an “Out for Delivery” event
(Note: This event will not be available
Caller Service (Delivery until Release 2.1)
Unit)
PO Box uptime barcode is
scanned on the ADD for the
associated Post Office
Opening time of Post Office
on the ADD
77
®
IV Mail Tracking & Reporting
Why are the two logical handling events that IV will implement in
Release 1 and Release 2.1 not considered Stop-the-Clock events?
 A Stop-the-Clock event is used to measure service for some
products. For parcels, the Stop-the-Clock event is provided when
a parcel is scanned at delivery or attempted delivery.
 Stop-the-Clock event for letters and flats is when the last
processing scan occurs for those mailpieces. The logical handling
event is derived when the last processing scan generates the
Anticipated Date of Delivery.
 To measure service for letters and flats, USPS combines the
processing duration score and adjusts based on Last Mile sampling
and for single piece adjusts based on First Mile sampling.
 Last Mile sampling involves an actual scan at delivery. These are
combined with processing profiles to generate end-to-end service
performance scores.
78
®
IV Mail Tracking & Reporting Education
What Educational Tools will be made available?
 Posting educational and reference materials to IV RIBBS and IV
PostalPro websites to include :
• IV Overview and Benefits for New Users and Current Customers
• IV Program Information
• Migration Information
• IV User Guides and Training
• IV Reference Materials
 Meeting regularly with MTAC User Group 4 to discuss IV features
– Scheduling series of webinars prior to and after national deployment
• IV training presentations
• Live demonstrations
• Recorded demonstrations
• Question & Answer sessions
79
®
IV Mail Tracking & Reporting
Provide a system overview of IV, including the new infrastructure
and technology used, so that industry can understand how the
system is designed.
 IV is a Big Data Solution
• The platform centralizes information from a multitude of sources
including:
o 35,708 postal facilities of which 290 process mail.
o 6,325+ pieces of mail processing equipment.
o 350,000 handheld scanners (325,000 scanners at delivery units and 25,000 at
mail processing facilities).
o Real-time geo-coordinates as carriers deliver to 155 million delivery points
nationally.
o 82 different postal systems.
 IV will process 173 billion transactions per day (2 million per
second) to build enterprise intelligence.
80
Enterprise Analytics/
Address Management &
Geospatial Technology
Updates – Jim Wilson
81
CASS Cycle N Extension
Reminder
 The current CASS Cycle N certification is effective until
July 31, 2018
 CASS Software Vendors must submit an extension
request prior to April 30, 2018 to extend CASS Cycle Ncertified product(s) through July 31, 2019
 Send request via email to: [email protected]
 11 Certified CASS Vendors have requested an
extension
 https://ribbs.usps.gov/cassmass/documents/tech_guides
/Announcements/CycleODecision.pdf
SHA-1 to SHA-256 Conversion
Update
 Approximately 54% of developers are downloading
and have started coding for SHA-256
 27% have completed coding
 10% have distributed the SHA-256 to customers and
5% have stopped distributing SHA-1 data
 All systems must be transitioned to SHA-256 no later
than July 1, 2017
 Seamless transition to mailers
83
Full-Service ACS
SingleSource ACS Fulfillment
Pending the Federal Register Notice finalization
 Full-Service & OneCode® ACS notices from UAA
First-Class Mail and Marketing Mail are provided in a
single Daily fulfillment file through EPF
 Charges will be applied only under the following
conditions:
•
•
•
•
•
Full Service volume threshold not met
IMb on the mailpiece is not unique
IMb not having a Full-Service ACS or OneCode ACS® STID
Mail owner identification in eDoc is not accurate
IMb cannot be matched to eDoc
Traditional ACS Reconciliation for
Full-Service Periodicals
Reconciliation Reports
Pending the Federal Register Notice finalization
 Reconciliation Reports & Scan Rate monitoring will
be discontinued, but MID/PID table will be
maintained
 Traditional ACS notices provided to Full Service
qualifying publishers will be reported on the
Shipping Notice - If qualified Trad ACS notices will
not be charged
 Exceptions:
• IMb with qualifying MID has a STID that does NOT
request Full-Service ACS
Manual Notices for
Full-Service Periodicals
PS Form 3579
Pending Federal Register Notice finalization
 Full-Service publications will not be required to
receive or pay for Manual notices unless
requested
 If the IMb cannot be read, a manual notice may
be generated
 Instructions will be provided to Post Offices of
qualifying publications and copied to the
publisher
®
MTAC User Group 5
Future Addressing Initiatives
 Increase the Total Number of Addresses Covered
by a R777 Designation
 Improve the use of ICOA methods to engage
customers for address updates
 Improve corrections and updates to ACS and NCOA
records that didn’t initially DPV
 Update the frequency of products that provide
address data to industry
 Consider other address attributes in AMS that may
be beneficial to industry
87
®
MTAC Work Group 177
Sunset in November 2016
 The resulting documents have been posted to
PostalPro:
• Improvements in Address Quality
Methodologies
http://postalpro.usps.com/address-quality
• ACS Best Practices
http://postalpro.usps.com/address-quality/ACS
88
®
User Group 5
College & University Group
Solutions for UAA Mail from Higher Education
 Mail for students leaving college each year must
be redirected by the schools
 Forces mail into the manual processing stream
 The mailing industry does not have access to the
address correction information, except through
returned mail or contact with the student
89
®
User Group 5
College & University Group
NCOALink® for EDU Pilot
 Students provide forwarding information to the





school and permits school to share with USPS
School continues to handle the mail
School creates an encrypted file that contains
student records and uploads to the USPS via secure
web service (EPF)
USPS processes data and adds student records to
NCOALink®
Schools monitor volume of forwarded and returned
mail and reports to USPS monthly
USPS will report matches as Code 07 and will
monitor counts
90
®
College & University Group
Pilot Timeline:
DATE
TASK
Jan – Apr 2017
Announcement
Mar 1 - Sep 30
Pilot Test Period
Schools Enroll, Participation Kit provided
Enrollment for EPF File Upload account
Testing & Feedback Period. Schools begin
to record volume of FWD/RTS/Waste Mail
Mar - Apr
Mar 2017
Mar - Apr
4th Tue of Month
Mar - Oct 2017
Due 7th of
Month Apr - Oct
Apr
Apr
TBD Nov 2017
NCOA for EDU Webinar @ 3PM ET
Schools monitor & report volume of UAA
Mail
Schools begin uploading files
Student Records added to NCOALink®
RESPONSIBL
E
NACUMS
/USPS
USPS/Schools
Schools
USPS/Schools
Schools/USPS
Meeting #:
743922372
Schools
Schools
USPS
Schools/USPS
91