Going off area with Telematics?

Cementups

Box Monkey
We never had to plant our own misloads to meet for lunch. Our Preload did that plenty well enough on their own. Even on my new route we have 1-3 a day and the driver next door comes to me where I eat lunch in a Flying J parking lot to swap packages. Our areas are seprated by the Interstate.
 

CharleyHustle

Well-Known Member
What you say here is absolutely true.....

Fixing the dispatch is key. It will make UPS more efficient, cut down on paid day, and better serve the customer....

There have been countless "keys" to improve efficiency that have come down the pike in my many years, none have ever effected the "paid day". Have you read this forum at all? In almost every topic there is a reference to excessive overtime. Less miles means more stops per car and less drivers....period.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
The flying J in Barstow has a place to gas up, eat, a general store, showers, etc.................all geared to truckers and travelers. If you are at Barstow before 6 AM, it's about the only thing open 'cept Denny's .
 

browniehound

Well-Known Member
Before tattlematics I used to go a couple of miles to meet another driver for lunch a couple days a week. Then when they installed the new system we were told we couldn't do it anymore UNLESS we were meeting to swap off-areas and walked-in-wrong-cars. Just saying ;)

I'm in a similar situation her. It might be a couple of miles off trace but the company allows us to meet because misloads can be swapped and work can be transferred without wasting fuel and time setting up meet points. I think the initial reaction was not to let it happen, but when they realized they had a good thing going prior to telematics in regards to limiting missed with little effort they allow it.

Its just another example of drivers having something worth listening to that management ignored. I'm not suggesting they do anything we recommend, but they need to at least listen.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
I don't think the issue will go away until some policy is drafted......

Any "policy" that UPS drafts will only make the problem worse. It will be an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all edict, issued from on high, and created by someone who sits in a heated office 30 feet down the hallway from a restroom who has no regard at all for the needs of human employees who need to eat and go to the bathroom. It will look great on a spreadsheet and sound logical on a conference call, but it will be unworkable in the real world.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
The new remote start and keyless entry has arrived at our hub. Got to test it out today on an old P1000.

Apparently (from above) corporate wants 1.4 more SPORH with the technology.

Sorry it's slightly OT but I couldn't find the other thread on this.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
That doesn't mean setting up the dispatch the way the driver wants however. I good PDS should listen to the driver's thoughts and use that to make a decision and then explain why the route(s) was set up they way they are. (I believe there is a policy that discusses this).


p-man...

2 years ago a new street was built in the town I deliver to, and there are now 3 houses on it.

The PDS at the time made a data-entry error and mistakenly placed this new street in the wrong unit, and on the wrong route. So a stop for one of these 3 houses now gets dispatched to a route clear over on the opposite side of town, and the driver must make a 9-mile round trip in order to deliver the stop.

We have repeatedly brought the problem to the attention of our current PDS, who claims that he cannot fix it because moving an address from one unit to another requires some "special authorization" from I.E. that has not and will not ever be granted. So about once or twice a week, whoever delivers to that area gets to make a 9-mile round trip for one stop. It has been this way for 2 years now and there is no hope that it will ever change.

If we cannot even resolve a 2 year old data-entry issue without I.E's blessing, what chance is there that we will ever be able to have any sort of rational, coherent loop detail? And why should we as drivers make any effort at all to reduce miles when the company we work for is itself making the problem worse?
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
The new remote start and keyless entry has arrived at our hub. Got to test it out today on an old P1000.

Apparently (from above) corporate wants 1.4 more SPORH with the technology.

Sorry it's slightly OT but I couldn't find the other thread on this.

So they dispatch a route into a vehicle that had the power steering intentionally deleted in to shorten your career and make your job more difficult....and then try to justify an increase in the stop count due to the "time savings" afforded by keyless entry???

It is bad enough that the idiots who think this crap up are allowed to breed offspring and vote in elections....but to think that they actually have positions of authority in the company we work for is truly frightening.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
So they dispatch a route into a vehicle that had the power steering intentionally deleted in to shorten your career and make your job more difficult....and then try to justify an increase in the stop count due to the "time savings" afforded by keyless entry???

It is bad enough that the idiots who think this crap up are allowed to breed offspring and vote in elections....but to think that they actually have positions of authority in the company we work for is truly frightening.

I'll never understand it, but apparently in the office with cool A/C, available restrooms and a GPS google earth it all makes perfect sense. Not to mention the chair at the computer has power steering with the wheels so you don't have to get up off the chair. Didn't mean to derail thread.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
The new remote start and keyless entry has arrived at our hub. Got to test it out today on an old P1000.

Apparently (from above) corporate wants 1.4 more SPORH with the technology.

Sorry it's slightly OT but I couldn't find the other thread on this.

Lets do the math on this bad boy.

The other day I tried a little experiment; I closed the BH door without latching it so that I could "time" how long it took me to open the door without a key vs. with one. I didnt use a stopwatch, I just counted out one-one thousand, two-one thousand etc.

My best estimate was that not having to use a key saved me about 1.5 seconds every time I had to open the door. Lets be optimistic and round that up to a full two seconds just to make the math easier and give UPS the benefit of the doubt.

If I am in a tight residential area that normally averages 30 stops per hour, that means I am completing one stop every two minutes. So a savings of 2 seconds per stop X 30 stops means that, in theory, I would save a total of one minute during that hour of work, which translates to an increase of 0.5 SPORH. And this is without factoring in multiple stops being delivered from one park position, meaning that more than one stop is being pulled every time the BH door is opened. So in reality, even a 30 SPORH delivery area would see a gain of less than 0.5 SPORH with keyless entry, and even then only under ideal conditions. And there are very few residential areas where 30 SPORH is even remotely possible.

I dont know who decided that keyless entry would save enough time for a 1.4 SPORH increase, but they need to put the crack pipe down and learn to do some basic math.
 

pretzel_man

Well-Known Member
p-man...

2 years ago a new street was built in the town I deliver to, and there are now 3 houses on it.

The PDS at the time made a data-entry error and mistakenly placed this new street in the wrong unit, and on the wrong route. So a stop for one of these 3 houses now gets dispatched to a route clear over on the opposite side of town, and the driver must make a 9-mile round trip in order to deliver the stop.

We have repeatedly brought the problem to the attention of our current PDS, who claims that he cannot fix it because moving an address from one unit to another requires some "special authorization" from I.E. that has not and will not ever be granted. So about once or twice a week, whoever delivers to that area gets to make a 9-mile round trip for one stop. It has been this way for 2 years now and there is no hope that it will ever change.

If we cannot even resolve a 2 year old data-entry issue without I.E's blessing, what chance is there that we will ever be able to have any sort of rational, coherent loop detail? And why should we as drivers make any effort at all to reduce miles when the company we work for is itself making the problem worse?

I'm not sure if the PDS gave you false information or if you are using different words....

Its true that only the IE can change a loop or unit.

However, the PDS can dispatch in any way they want and can also change the sequence.

In the example you state, if the sequence (address range) is in the correct loop, the PDS can change that him/herself. Its probably a one time 5 minute fix.

If its in the wrong loop, the PDS can fix it him / herself as well. Also a five minute fix, but will need to be done for every plan he / she has and check that it doesn't revert when edits are made.

In either case, the PDS can fix this.

Its not true that "cannot even resolve a 2 year old data-entry issue without I.E's blessing".
 

Dragon

Package Center Manager
I'm not sure if the PDS gave you false information or if you are using different words....

Its true that only the IE can change a loop or unit.

However, the PDS can dispatch in any way they want and can also change the sequence.

In the example you state, if the sequence (address range) is in the correct loop, the PDS can change that him/herself. Its probably a one time 5 minute fix.

If its in the wrong loop, the PDS can fix it him / herself as well. Also a five minute fix, but will need to be done for every plan he / she has and check that it doesn't revert when edits are made.

Pretzel you are correct, but if he moves it to the correct loop it creates a sequence break (he now has the street in the wrong loop) and the PDS does not want a sequence break because he has to answer for it. A PDS cannot "change the loop number - its locked out..he can only move it" If the IE supervisor or manager will take 5 minutes to remote in with the PDS he will see the issue, fix it and problem solved forever. Where I am, we are lucky enough to have a IE supervisor or his manager who will do this for us if he is available.

In either case, the PDS can fix this.

Its not true that "cannot even resolve a 2 year old data-entry issue without I.E's blessing".
 

pretzel_man

Well-Known Member
Pretzel you are correct, but if he moves it to the correct loop it creates a sequence break (he now has the street in the wrong loop) and the PDS does not want a sequence break because he has to answer for it. A PDS cannot "change the loop number - its locked out..he can only move it" If the IE supervisor or manager will take 5 minutes to remote in with the PDS he will see the issue, fix it and problem solved forever. Where I am, we are lucky enough to have a IE supervisor or his manager who will do this for us if he is available.

Yes.... If its in the wrong loop, it will create a sequence break.

If this is the case then he / she has a choice:

Get IE to put it in the right loop.
Take the hit on the sequence break.
Take the hit on the mileage index.

I put this in the order of preference.

Of course, if its in the right loop, it can be fixed permanently by the PDS without IE.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Yes.... If its in the wrong loop, it will create a sequence break.

If this is the case then he / she has a choice:

Get IE to put it in the right loop.
Take the hit on the sequence break.
Take the hit on the mileage index.

I put this in the order of preference.

Of course, if its in the right loop, it can be fixed permanently by the PDS without IE.

The actual location of the stop is in a completely different loop and unit from where it is mistakenly being dispatched. My PDS claims that moving it to the correct unit/loop requires IE authorization because of the difference in time allowances for the two units.

His current "band-aid" approach...which only seems to work about 1/3rd of the time...is to have a special PAS label assigned to that street which causes the package to be pulled off of the belt and sent to his office so that he can personally walk the package to the correct car. The only downside to this method (other than its 33% success rate) is that the stop does not appear in my EDD at all, or if it does it defaults to the last stop on the 8000 shelf.

My question is this; why all of the paranoia? Why "lock him out" of the solution? Instead of requiring IE permission before solving the problem, why not empower him to solve it himself, with the understanding that his action will trigger some sort of review that he knows he will have to be accountable for? Any rational person who looked at the situation on a map would understand exactly what he is doing and why.

More importantly...if we are this rigid, this unyeilding, and this authoritarian regarding something as simple as correct loop detail and unit numbers.....what hope will there ever be for successor systems such as ORIAN to be successful?
 

pretzel_man

Well-Known Member
The actual location of the stop is in a completely different loop and unit from where it is mistakenly being dispatched. My PDS claims that moving it to the correct unit/loop requires IE authorization because of the difference in time allowances for the two units.

His current "band-aid" approach...which only seems to work about 1/3rd of the time...is to have a special PAS label assigned to that street which causes the package to be pulled off of the belt and sent to his office so that he can personally walk the package to the correct car. The only downside to this method (other than its 33% success rate) is that the stop does not appear in my EDD at all, or if it does it defaults to the last stop on the 8000 shelf.

My question is this; why all of the paranoia? Why "lock him out" of the solution? Instead of requiring IE permission before solving the problem, why not empower him to solve it himself, with the understanding that his action will trigger some sort of review that he knows he will have to be accountable for? Any rational person who looked at the situation on a map would understand exactly what he is doing and why.

More importantly...if we are this rigid, this unyeilding, and this authoritarian regarding something as simple as correct loop detail and unit numbers.....what hope will there ever be for successor systems such as ORIAN to be successful?

It is accurate that if a sequence is in the wrong loop, only IE can make the edit.

There is a much easier solution for the PDS other than walking the package off in the preload. He / She can just move the sequence to the correct route in the proper place. It takes some maintenance, but is much easier than what they are doing.

The reason for the "paranoia" is because people abused the ability to edit the data. The security feature was added years after DPS / PAS was deployed. With the edits before that, good loops were destroyed.....

The right answer is to get the IE to make the edit. Its not hard to do.....
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
The reason for the "paranoia" is because people abused the ability to edit the data. The security feature was added years after DPS / PAS was deployed. With the edits before that, good loops were destroyed......

And the result now is that bad loops and other problems are chiseled in stone and cant be corrected.

Instead of being paranoid and "locking out" your own management people from being able to make necessary edits the system...maybe a better "security system" would be to trust them to make the right decisions while holding them accountable when they dont. Give them the ability to make the needed changes, but with the knowledge that such changes will trigger a report that they will have to answer to. You guys print out enough reports already, what harm would there be in one more?

It sounds to me like such paranoia has less to do with any necessary security features.....and more to do with job security for the IE puppet masters who want to maintain iron-fisted control over every aspect of the operation from afar.
 
Last edited:

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
The right answer is to get the IE to make the edit. Its not hard to do.....

With all due respect P-man, the fact that he has been forced to SPA the package to his office and walk it to the truck himself means that, apparently, getting IE to make the edit is pretty hard to do.
 

pretzel_man

Well-Known Member
With all due respect P-man, the fact that he has been forced to SPA the package to his office and walk it to the truck himself means that, apparently, getting IE to make the edit is pretty hard to do.

I don't know if the problem is I.E. or the problem is the PDS who didn't try.

I do know its not your fault.

There are two management people and at least one of them is not doing their job.

Fixing things like this may take a little perseverence. Elevating the issue can usually fix them very quickly.
 
Top