IWT !!!!

[shaun1965]

IS IT STILL THE CASE THAT THE INWARD WORK TOOL (IWT)CAN ONLY BE USED RELATING TO THE WHOLE OFFICE AND NOT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS ? WE HAVE A NEW DOM WHO IS TELLING US HE CAN USE IT TO MEASURE OUR SORT AND PREP RATES

[mandelsons_toenail]

he cant do that

disagreement now

get the rep on it

if he wont area rep will

[fishtank]

The tools we have agreed with Royal Mail for delivery offices are not designed to be used for individual
performance. There is a separate national agreement that covers this - Royal Mail Individual Performance Standards - and any other type of approach is not agreed with the CWU.

If management persist in using anything else, then a disagreement should be registered in the office to prevent this. The agreed tool is the IWT and this tool is about office performance not individual
performance.

[woofwoof]

this should work

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 42&t=37811" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[POSTMAN]

this should work

This works as well...

[shaun1965]

THANKS GUYS,SORRY FOR THE DELAYED REPLY.NICE TO ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING IN BLACK AND WHITE TO THROW IN HIS FACE !!!

[ronpetetrevchris]

We are currently so sick of our revision after a year of it that we are going to rework it table top style. This is me the rep and the DOM, DSM and area rep overwatching.

One aspect of it we were going to revise was using IWT to tailor prep based on model week, the idea being to maximise IP. At the minute all 318's are generic and walk a which has 500 dp's has the same prep as walk b with 1000 dp's.reading on here about IWT and individual performance standards im confused about whether i should be encouraging this.

It seems logical for me to plan this way, am i doing wrong?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Well, me I wouldn't base it just on Delivery Points. After all a swanky estate in the Suburbs will have low density housing, but a high mail profile. Whereas a council estate built in the 30/40s (back to backs) will have a very deep housing density but a low mail profile. Its possible that a 1,000 DP duty in the council estate could be done in 1/2 the time a 200 dp duty in the leafy suburbs could.

I think to have a fair revision you have to take a lot into account, average housing density PD (per duty), total mileage walked PD, mail profile (PD), average call rate, average attendance rate, distance to travel there and back, terrain types etc - its a hard to get right and I don't envy you.

[ronpetetrevchris]

Well, me I wouldn't base it just on Delivery Points. After all a swanky estate in the Suburbs will have low density housing, but a high mail profile. Whereas a council estate built in the 30/40s (back to backs) will have a very deep housing density but a low mail profile. Its possible that a 1,000 DP duty in the council estate could be done in 1/2 the time a 200 dp duty in the leafy suburbs could.

I think to have a fair revision you have to take a lot into account, average housing density PD (per duty), total mileage walked PD, mail profile (PD), average call rate, average attendance rate, distance to travel there and back, terrain types etc - its a hard to get right and I don't envy you.

Sorry, should have made it clearer, it was only the amount of prep each duty performed that i was going to get off IWT. As you probably know IWT has a % of traffic each duty receives and then transforms that into a time it should be performed in. Some of the times it gives seem very short, but it still gives a ratio between preps. I was thinking we could use this as a basis to make prep fairer between the duties. As i have said all preps are the same in our D.O, it just dosent seem right that mr jones has 1400 items on a certain day (according to IWT) yet mrs smith has say 900 but the same time to prep.

[ninja]

Also remember that the IWT doesn't take into account the wings and so the values are based on using just a base unit. If the DOM disagrees with this ask for a copy of the user guide which states this fact or simply go into IWT and change the amount of wings and compare the prep times, you will see that this doesn't alter the prep time.

Also use your common sense with the D2D element within IWT, since this is still set at the default rate until the live trial data has been fed into the program.

[ronpetetrevchris]

Also remember that the IWT doesn't take into account the wings and so the values are based on using just a base unit. If the DOM disagrees with this ask for a copy of the user guide which states this fact or simply go into IWT and change the amount of wings and compare the prep times, you will see that this doesn't alter the prep time.

Interesting! When i was playing with it i also found that changing the d2d count didnt change the values, still to get clarification on this!!

[Budfrog]

Is there anyone at CWU HQ who checks the accuracy/integrity of Excel Spreadsheets such as IWT as it is not totally unknown for RM ones to be riddled with mistakes (which are often in hidden areas of the spreadsheet) ?.

[ninja]

Is there anyone at CWU HQ who checks the accuracy/integrity of Excel Spreadsheets such as IWT as it is not totally unknown for RM ones to be riddled with mistakes (which are often in hidden areas of the spreadsheet) ?.

Bullfrog is correct and must of the tools have hidden values contained within them and more shocking is that CWU HQ don't have access to the values/maths used within the various tools, a good example was the no defunct span indicator which although had a tab for the local BSI the actual calculation used within the tool was set at a 100 and so unless you went in and change this calculation it didn't matter what was used in the BSI tab.

Unfortunatly HQ are trying to deal with an employer that likes to twist agreements and use technology to lie to it's employees.

[Budfrog]

Is there anyone at CWU HQ who checks the accuracy/integrity of Excel Spreadsheets such as IWT as it is not totally unknown for RM ones to be riddled with mistakes (which are often in hidden areas of the spreadsheet) ?.

Bullfrog is correct and must of the tools have hidden values contained within them and more shocking is that CWU HQ don't have access to the values/maths used within the various tools, a good example was the no defunct span indicator which although had a tab for the local BSI the actual calculation used within the tool was set at a 100 and so unless you went in and change this calculation it didn't matter what was used in the BSI tab.

Unfortunatly HQ are trying to deal with an employer that likes to twist agreements and use technology to lie to it's employees.

Before accepting any tool, in the form of an Excel spreadsheet or other, RM should supply an open version (or supply relavent passwords) for CWU HQ to run through. The problem is that spreadsheets are often launched and distributed nationally without a full audit and when mistakes are found at a later date it is often difficult to rework tasks that have been undertaken ... often even when new versions are distributed DOs/Mail Centres do not always use them.

CWU HQ should have the expertise (or be willing to bring it in on contract) to check everything as there have been serious question marks over the competences of national planners in the past.