Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
I want to live in I.E. world
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pretzel_man" data-source="post: 595334" data-attributes="member: 927"><p>I agree that if the route is "blown out", the driver will be forced to sort or do something else outside the methods in order to make the best of the situation. </p><p> </p><p>As I said before, a debate among I.E.'s inside and outside of UPS is how to account for this time. The debate has been going on forever.</p><p> </p><p>If you give planned time for the situation, the driver is then scratch (at least in this element). However, now the bad situation is no longer made visible. No one sees that the management decision has caused ineffective (although necessary) behavior. In addition, how is this controlled. If the route changes, is the driver now under allowed? How do you take this into account?</p><p> </p><p>The other option which UPS chose (and I was on this side of that debate) to not account for the time. The down side of this is that overallowed is no longer a measurement of just the driver. Its the driver AND the job setup handed over from the preload.</p><p> </p><p>I have posted many times that Overallowed works great as a center wide / district wide management tool. Its not good for holding an individual driver accountable to scratch.</p><p> </p><p>I should also point out that when planning the dispatch, overallowed is taken into account. If a route is .5 or 1 hour overallowed, this is added into the planned day to show the dispatched day.</p><p> </p><p>While I will argue that work measurement is pretty accurate for a center, I will never say that every driver should be scratch. Work measurement is generally pointing inefficiencies. It does not point out who caused the problem.</p><p> </p><p>P-Man</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pretzel_man, post: 595334, member: 927"] I agree that if the route is "blown out", the driver will be forced to sort or do something else outside the methods in order to make the best of the situation. As I said before, a debate among I.E.'s inside and outside of UPS is how to account for this time. The debate has been going on forever. If you give planned time for the situation, the driver is then scratch (at least in this element). However, now the bad situation is no longer made visible. No one sees that the management decision has caused ineffective (although necessary) behavior. In addition, how is this controlled. If the route changes, is the driver now under allowed? How do you take this into account? The other option which UPS chose (and I was on this side of that debate) to not account for the time. The down side of this is that overallowed is no longer a measurement of just the driver. Its the driver AND the job setup handed over from the preload. I have posted many times that Overallowed works great as a center wide / district wide management tool. Its not good for holding an individual driver accountable to scratch. I should also point out that when planning the dispatch, overallowed is taken into account. If a route is .5 or 1 hour overallowed, this is added into the planned day to show the dispatched day. While I will argue that work measurement is pretty accurate for a center, I will never say that every driver should be scratch. Work measurement is generally pointing inefficiencies. It does not point out who caused the problem. P-Man [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
I want to live in I.E. world
Top