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
Will Supervisors be needed in the future?
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="soberups" data-source="post: 822752" data-attributes="member: 14668"><p>But most of the time, the drivers crossing over each other, poor loads etc. are the <em>direct result</em> of trying to meet that Stops Per Car metric.</p><p> </p><p>A dispatch plan that works <em>great</em> when you load it into 50 cars becomes a train wreck when you have to try and force it into 47.</p><p> </p><p>The problem is that its waaaay more complicated than simply shifting stops from one car to the next according to area trace. The number of stops per car might fluctuate but there are certain parameters that remain a constant <em>regardless</em> of that number. NDA commit times dont change. Bulk stops dont change. The need to service satellite centers with pup trailers doesnt change. The number of daily pickups and the window of time that they must be serviced in doesnt change.</p><p> </p><p>Lets say you have 5 cars in a loop, and volume drops to where one has to be eliminated. Lets assume that route is the "E" car, and that it is dispatched in a P-7. Eliminate that route, and whatever business bulk stops it has have to be shifted to the other cars. Well in an area like mine, there are some routes that have to be dispatched in P-7's because they deliver rural areas with tight driveways that cannot be navigated in a larger car. Or they service a satellite center and must pull a trailer to that location, which requires a hitch, which are only installed on P-7's. So when you eliminate the "E" car you must find a way to force that volume into other cars in the loop that often cannot contain it and for which a larger car is not an option. In addition, somebody <em>still</em> has to deliver the "E" cars committed packages (<em>in addition</em> to their own) within the normal time frame, which means even <em>more</em> breaking of trace. And the "E" cars pickups must <em>still</em> be contained and serviced within an acceptable timeframe, which means even <strong><em>more</em></strong> breaking of trace. So instead of the precise and orderly shifting of volume from one car to the next....which seems so simple when viewed on a map from behind a desk...... you wind up with a chaotic and counterproductive pile of Band-Aid compromises and jury-rigged solutions to the <strong>real-world logistical problems </strong>of time and containment.</p><p> </p><p>Eliminating routes <em>properly</em> to account for fluctuations in volume is work that requires a scalpel. Cutting routes in order to satisfy an arbitrary SPC metric is like using a chain saw instead.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soberups, post: 822752, member: 14668"] But most of the time, the drivers crossing over each other, poor loads etc. are the [I]direct result[/I] of trying to meet that Stops Per Car metric. A dispatch plan that works [I]great[/I] when you load it into 50 cars becomes a train wreck when you have to try and force it into 47. The problem is that its waaaay more complicated than simply shifting stops from one car to the next according to area trace. The number of stops per car might fluctuate but there are certain parameters that remain a constant [I]regardless[/I] of that number. NDA commit times dont change. Bulk stops dont change. The need to service satellite centers with pup trailers doesnt change. The number of daily pickups and the window of time that they must be serviced in doesnt change. Lets say you have 5 cars in a loop, and volume drops to where one has to be eliminated. Lets assume that route is the "E" car, and that it is dispatched in a P-7. Eliminate that route, and whatever business bulk stops it has have to be shifted to the other cars. Well in an area like mine, there are some routes that have to be dispatched in P-7's because they deliver rural areas with tight driveways that cannot be navigated in a larger car. Or they service a satellite center and must pull a trailer to that location, which requires a hitch, which are only installed on P-7's. So when you eliminate the "E" car you must find a way to force that volume into other cars in the loop that often cannot contain it and for which a larger car is not an option. In addition, somebody [I]still[/I] has to deliver the "E" cars committed packages ([I]in addition[/I] to their own) within the normal time frame, which means even [I]more[/I] breaking of trace. And the "E" cars pickups must [I]still[/I] be contained and serviced within an acceptable timeframe, which means even [B][I]more[/I][/B] breaking of trace. So instead of the precise and orderly shifting of volume from one car to the next....which seems so simple when viewed on a map from behind a desk...... you wind up with a chaotic and counterproductive pile of Band-Aid compromises and jury-rigged solutions to the [B]real-world logistical problems [/B]of time and containment. Eliminating routes [I]properly[/I] to account for fluctuations in volume is work that requires a scalpel. Cutting routes in order to satisfy an arbitrary SPC metric is like using a chain saw instead. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Will Supervisors be needed in the future?
Top