Telematics and peak

[soberups]

I've said before that looking for 90 second discrepancies is stupid. On the other hand, attention to detail is not....
....I think I've seen the "overall" picture". This includes the good, bad, and ugly.

P-Man

My only point is that, if you are going to evaluate the true costs and benefits of the program, you have to factor in all of the data.

This data would therefore include the huge amounts of money that are currently being wasted by obsessing over "stupid" discrepancies and other trivia. It is a routine occurence here for a driver and his shop steward to spend a combined total of 45 minutes to an hour discussing a 1 minute discrepancy.

It would be naive of me to assume that mine is the only location where this behavior is occuring. UPS being what it is, I would tend to think that this behavior is more of the rule, rather than the exception.

Currently, the huge amount of time spent nitpicking over Telematics minutae is being coded out in the DIAD under "approved meetings". I am curious....is all of the time spent discussing the data being factored in to the cost/benefit analysis of Telematics as a whole? Or, as we so often see in the other new programs that UPS implements, is that cost simply being "shifted" to other areas of the operation in order to maintain the illusion of success?

 

[pretzel_man]

My only point is that, if you are going to evaluate the true costs and benefits of the program, you have to factor in all of the data.

This data would therefore include the huge amounts of money that are currently being wasted by obsessing over "stupid" discrepancies and other trivia. It is a routine occurence here for a driver and his shop steward to spend a combined total of 45 minutes to an hour discussing a 1 minute discrepancy.

It would be naive of me to assume that mine is the only location where this behavior is occuring. UPS being what it is, I would tend to think that this behavior is more of the rule, rather than the exception.

Currently, the huge amount of time spent nitpicking over Telematics minutae is being coded out in the DIAD under "approved meetings". I am curious....is all of the time spent discussing the data being factored in to the cost/benefit analysis of Telematics as a whole? Or, as we so often see in the other new programs that UPS implements, is that cost simply being "shifted" to other areas of the operation in order to maintain the illusion of success?

Of course you are not naive to think this is happening elsewhere. It definitely is. Coding out to meeting doesn't help the overall cost picture. It would help indices like SPORH, but not overall cost.

By the way, some of the best sites have been on the longest and do not have special assignment people in place or manage minutiae. The continually find the next largest issue, fix their dispatch, and use telematics to maintain the results.

One more thing. You mentioned letting "big picture" facts drive one's opinion. When Telematics first came out, I was much against it. I thought we already had enough tools to look at yesterday. Once I saw it and used it, my opinion changed. I can very quickly analyze a driver's day and dispatch and take action.

P-Man

 

[soberups]

Of course you are not naive to think this is happening elsewhere. It definitely is. Coding out to meeting doesn't help the overall cost picture. It would help indices like SPORH, but not overall cost.

But the operations-level management could care less about the overall cost picture. Their promotion...their very survival...depends solely upon manipulating the "indices" such as SPORH that they are judged on. They are more than happy to waste 45 minutes of employee/steward overtime busting some guys balls over a two minute Telematic discrepancy, because that 45 minute meeting can simply be coded out onto someone elses time.

By the way, some of the best sites have been on the longest and do not have special assignment people in place or manage minutiae. The continually find the next largest issue, fix their dispatch, and use telematics to maintain the results.

Then why is this not a consistent practice company wide?
In no way do I mean to be disrespectful, P-man, but you didnt really answer my question. Has the total cost of Telematics...including the time spent on the nit-picking....ever been factored in when judging the merits of the system, or is this cost being swept under the rug by simply "coding it out"?

One more thing. You mentioned letting "big picture" facts drive one's opinion. When Telematics first came out, I was much against it. I thought we already had enough tools to look at yesterday. Once I saw it and used it, my opinion changed. I can very quickly analyze a driver's day and dispatch and take action.

I have always been consistent in my position that the company has every right to wire its equipment up with whatever sensors and technology it chooses to install.

I have simply been skeptical of whether or not the benefits of the system were truly as great as they were purported to be. I've not seen anything to change that skepticism....particularly when I see some of the costs being hidden through "creative coding".

I also refused to buy into the company line that Telematics was intended to be a "safety" enhancement. Lip service was in fact given to some of the data (backing) during the early stages of implementation, but it amounted to little more than a "flavor of the week" that was simply being spoon-fed to us in order to make the true intentions of the program...increased production through intense harassment and micro-management...more palatable.

 

[hellfire]

Data is minuplated to shows whatever gains are promised by the project leaders. Once they're gone the true numbers will surface. Same as evey other project I've seen at UPS. The costs on the other end often exceed the so called savings or the cost is just shifted to another area that is not within the focus.

----------------------------------------------very very true,, problem is they never admit to failure on these new initiatives

 

[bumped]

In the center I used to work in they work shift the costs of any building set up AM or PM to car wash. You know what we had our cars washed once every 3 months if we were lucky.

If UPS wanted to save real money how about stopping all the cigarette breaks for the supervisors.

 

[ULiRuiz526]

If UPS wanted to save real money how about stopping all the cigarette breaks for the supervisors.

LMAO!!! Nice! That's my new signature!

 

[pretzel_man]

Sober,

In response to some of your items below....

Yes... the total time is considered. At least in the hourly ranks. It doesn't matter where you code the time, it shows up on the center cost report. So, the benefit side is definitely properly accounted. "Creative coding" won't impact that.

On the other hand, if a site uses a tremendous amount of management time, this is not necessarily accounted for. In determining payback, corporate assumes some amount of management time. If a district or site uses a huge amount, this "may" not show up.

Telematics as a safety item was certainly oversold. I did the same here. In my defense, that was the original campaign...

Automotive and Safety were the two new areas that Telematics provided. It turns out the performance gains provided more benefit that I expected...

You have a right to be skeptical based on that information.

However, there is no denying that safety elements are drastically improved.

You may call it harassment. That's your right. I call it attention to detail. For me, it takes little more than a conversation.

In a small amount of cases, the conversation gets intense, but I assure you I have never moved to harassment. I would say the opposite was true ....

P-Man



Originally Posted by pretzel_man
Of course you are not naive to think this is happening elsewhere. It definitely is. Coding out to meeting doesn't help the overall cost picture. It would help indices like SPORH, but not overall cost.

But the operations-level management could care less about the overall cost picture. Their promotion...their very survival...depends solely upon manipulating the "indices" such as SPORH that they are judged on. They are more than happy to waste 45 minutes of employee/steward overtime busting some guys balls over a two minute Telematic discrepancy, because that 45 minute meeting can simply be coded out onto someone elses time.

By the way, some of the best sites have been on the longest and do not have special assignment people in place or manage minutiae. The continually find the next largest issue, fix their dispatch, and use telematics to maintain the results.

Then why is this not a consistent practice company wide?
In no way do I mean to be disrespectful, P-man, but you didnt really answer my question. Has the total cost of Telematics...including the time spent on the nit-picking....ever been factored in when judging the merits of the system, or is this cost being swept under the rug by simply "coding it out"?

One more thing. You mentioned letting "big picture" facts drive one's opinion. When Telematics first came out, I was much against it. I thought we already had enough tools to look at yesterday. Once I saw it and used it, my opinion changed. I can very quickly analyze a driver's day and dispatch and take action.

I have always been consistent in my position that the company has every right to wire its equipment up with whatever sensors and technology it chooses to install.

I have simply been skeptical of whether or not the benefits of the system were truly as great as they were purported to be. I've not seen anything to change that skepticism....particularly when I see some of the costs being hidden through "creative coding".

I also refused to buy into the company line that Telematics was intended to be a "safety" enhancement. Lip service was in fact given to some of the data (backing) during the early stages of implementation, but it amounted to little more than a "flavor of the week" that was simply being spoon-fed to us in order to make the true intentions of the program...increased production through intense harassment and micro-management...more palatable.

 

[SignificantOwner]

I think I've seen the "overall" picture". This includes the good, bad, and ugly.

P-Man

Speaking of the ugly, it sounds like you're in a position to see the corporate misload numbers that are scanned by drivers. How many misloads are scanned in daily by drivers? Why aren't the districts and centers allowed access to the historical information for their areas of responsibility?

 

[code5]

I had a brand new employee that I was training once told me after a week of work that UPS focused more on the 15 days a year where they might have light days than they do on the 350 that there is normal to heavy freight.

 

[SignificantOwner]

However, there is no denying that safety elements are drastically improved.

Safety results are drastically improved in non-telematics sites.
Productivity is drastically improved in non-telematics sites.
Excess hours are drastically reduced in non-telematics sites.

I love Telematics, but to justify the system based on these gains seems intellectually dishonest.

 

[pretzel_man]

Safety results are drastically improved in non-telematics sites.
Productivity is drastically improved in non-telematics sites.
Excess hours are drastically reduced in non-telematics sites.

I love Telematics, but to justify the system based on these gains seems intellectually dishonest.

There is no way to know if safety elements are improved in non-telematics sites... Until we had telematics, we did not know the amount of backing occurrances, non-seat belt use, recording while driving, etc.

Productivity is improved in all sites. Telematics sites improved significantly more than non-telematics sites.

Comparing Telematics sites to non-Telematics sites seems like a very "intellectually honest" way to do things. How would one do it differently?

P-Man

 

[RoyalFlush]

There is no way to know if safety elements are improved in non-telematics sites... Until we had telematics, we did not know the amount of backing occurrances, non-seat belt use, recording while driving, etc.

Productivity is improved in all sites. Telematics sites improved significantly more than non-telematics sites.

Comparing Telematics sites to non-Telematics sites seems like a very "intellectually honest" way to do things. How would one do it differently?

P-Man

Results are different from elements. That's where it gets fuzzy. They take the number of seat belt occurrences and length of backing reduction and assign a safety cost savings figure to it. It reminds of the Ernest car commercial we he says "you’re gonna save $59,000 on a $10,000 car." It's not an actual cost savings. If you back less, you will have less backing accidents, therefore you will save X dollars is only true if you actually reduce backing accident and even then you may have reduced them by other means.

Rear vision monitors already fixed the backing problem???? We have more backing accidents now than when they didn't exist and I'm sure someone, somewhere cost justified them before they were installed.

Show me some productivity numbers and I tell you how they shifted the cost to another category.

How can telematics itself possibly improve productivity? All it does is tell you where the driver was and at what time.

 

[SignificantOwner]

There is no way to know if safety elements are improved in non-telematics sites... Until we had telematics, we did not know the amount of backing occurrances, non-seat belt use, recording while driving, etc.

P-Man

Safety results are absolutely measurable, but be sure to analyze the accident and injury frequencies to determine effectiveness. Backing, failing to wear a seat belt, driving with the bulkhead open, recording while traveling, etc., are all thought to be risky behaviors. The theory would be that if you reduce the number of risky behaviors then a reduction in the number of crashes and injuries would follow. The reduction in risky behaviors is meaningless unless followed by a reduction in crashes and injuries. Auto crash and dart frequencies are measured by every operation and the measurement is consistent from year to year so the Telematics safety impact would be easy to quantify.

 

[SignificantOwner]

There is no way to know if safety elements are improved in non-telematics sites... Until we had telematics, we did not know the amount of backing occurrances, non-seat belt use, recording while driving, etc.

Productivity is improved in all sites. Telematics sites improved significantly more than non-telematics sites.

Comparing Telematics sites to non-Telematics sites seems like a very "intellectually honest" way to do things. How would one do it differently?

P-Man

I don't think a comparison of Telematics vs. non-Telematics sites is an apples to apples comparison. An entire management structure has been put in place to drive results in relatively few Telematics sites. There are corporate coordinators, region coordinators, and district coordinators all put in place to focus on and drive improvement in a few targeted sites. In addition, these few sites get extra attention from the region ops manager, region ie manager, district manager, district ops manager, and their division manager. These centers are going to show improvement in the desired numbers or they'll be belittled and slammed without mercy. We'll see the real impact as more sites are implemented. It'll become impossible for the same management structure to micro manage a large number of centers. The same thing happened with PAS, it's the natural progression. I think Telematics is a good system, but a true money saver would be a solution to the systemic misload problem that came with PAS.

 

[Dustyroads]

If every package car on the belts had a hand held scanner attached to the rear shelf, and every loader had to scan each package as it went into the truck, with an alert sounded if the package were going into the wrong car, we could significantly eliminate misloads. It might take a few more minutes on the preload until loaders got really used to scanning their packages, but it would eliminate this problem. It would also provide excellent security information as we would know exactly what went into the rear doors of each package car. Just an idea.

 

[brownmonster]

If every package car on the belts had a hand held scanner attached to the rear shelf, and every loader had to scan each package as it went into the truck, with an alert sounded if the package were going into the wrong car, we could significantly eliminate misloads. It might take a few more minutes on the preload until loaders got really used to scanning their packages, but it would eliminate this problem. It would also provide excellent security information as we would know exactly what went into the rear doors of each package car. Just an idea.

Good idea in theory. I already start 45 minutes later due to PAS. This would probably add another 30.

 

[Dustyroads]

Perhaps they should start the preload a tad bit earlier. Just an idea, in theory.

 

[brownmonster]

Seems so simple, doesn't it? Why would you want to be on the road serving customers?

 

[Dustyroads]

When I started in 79, the start time was 8:15. When we started Next Day Air service in the 80s, our start times moved to 8:45, because our center is located about 75 miles from the nearest airport served by UPS flights. After a few years of that, the start time moved to 8:30, where it remains today, except during peak. While I have no doubts that your start times may have shifted some, I'm just saying that the causal-link between PAS and the later start times may not be solid. There may be other factors, as it really hasn't changed things in our building, with respect to our start time. The most common cause of a late start time in our building is the air trailer arriving to the building late. I'm sure things are different at different centers.

 

[MC4YOU2]

When I started in 89, start time was 7AM - driver sort and load and it was awesome. After PAS/EDD was implemented it went to 8AM. Then it was discovered that things could not ever run smoothly and dependably enough to ever actually get the cars loaded by 8. So many trials and failures later it is 845 usually. At best we are 15-30 later leaving the building than we were 20 years ago. We do see the Fedex guy delivering around our neighborhood during most PCM's though, so there's a real positive change. Yes, it just keeps getting better every year.