This was obtained using the FOIA through the USPS. It has a lot of info redacted. Below is an overview of what is in the report by C$$ on my Rural Mail Talk forum. Some of C$$’s comments are also included.. If you want to see the original posting or join the conversation go to this link.
Begin C$$ overview
The document has been **heavily** redacted, but there is still some good information. Here are my thoughts as I read through. They are ordered by corresponding page number in the report.
2) *Panel’s Report of October 31, 2017* looks to be another document worth having
3) “RRECS engineered standards have been validated and are fully documented and available electronically in a uniform structure and format. Systematic procedures for creating, auditing, and changing standards, and resolving standards dispustes are provided” Great, provide them to us too!
3) *Panel Recommendations for Improving RRECS* Another document worth having
4) “Potential roles for RRECS include: … Justifying new USPS delivery initiatives to Congress.” Can’t say I follow the logic on that one
9) MTM1 some industrial motion time system. I haven’t looked into this yet, but lots of interesting results for googling *MTM1 motion time system*
10) “RRECS also provides the basis for route optimization technology comparable to the ORION system of UPS.” Yikes! Sounds like the long term plan is restructuring routes.
21) “technical advisor, Dr. John Bartholdi…” Hello! Who is this now?? There was a John Bartholdi at Georgia Tech, and I seem to remember Georgia Tech being involved with drive time calculations… But that Dr. Bartholdi passed away in 2019.
22) “…scan requirements are realistic, and *with proper training and compliance monitoring*, they can be consistently done correctly.” Basically carriers struggle with the RRECS scans b/c, get this, their training was terrible. Raise your hand if you are surprised.
31) “… the large gaps between actual time and normal time observed in the statistical validation are largely the result of … the shortcut procedure many carriers use in performing their work.” People hurry, standards are cut, hurrying is the new standard. I swear we must be living in the 1920s, not the 2020s.
33) “The basic premise … drive speed is governed primarily by the distance driven from one full stop to the next full stop.” OK, interesting premise. But what data/research is it based on?
47) “parties will need to negotiate a reasonable rule for identifying these situations (e.g. single-box curb stops > 100; or single-box curb stops > 100 or 20% of total boxes…)” They are talking about coverage factor in this section. It *looks* like CBU coverage factor will be estimated based on curb boxes (ie if you stop at 80% of your curb boxes, your CBU coverage factor will be 80%). This has been, and probably still is, being negotiated. But potentially very important for you CBU heavy routes out there.
69) DUVRS is Delivery Unit Volume Recording System. Anyone ever heard of or used it?
75) “Will facilitate change management” WTF is ‘change management’ ???!!
76) “The system is not yet complete, and it is simply impossible to validate RRECS completely until it is.” Still true.
76) “Most of the remaining data quality challenges are believed to be the result of carriers not following the standard procedures associated with using the scanners. This can be overcome with continued emphasis on training and follow-up.” Sure, blame the carriers.
Some surprising tidbits in here. Possibly they forgot to redact this part to match the rest of the report.
ESRI — corporate supplier of geographic information systems
Poka-Yoke — engineering design process to eliminate the possibility of making errors
Project Management — team contracted from Deloitt coordinating development teams. Anyone heard of Deloitt? Know anyone that works there?
Retired — a standard or data element that was numbered in RRECS development but no longer used. RRECS has taken so long even the data elements are retiring!
Solver — Developed by Accenture. Anyone know that company? Know anyone that works there?
We should file a FOIA request for every document here.
End C$$ overview