National Delivery Review

[dvbuk55]

Dingos problem is he is looking at the potential for improvement in job and finish, 66 BSI and overstaffing - now in real offices the bucket is already full.

[fishtank]

It's now about making sure that we agree what is a. Realistic efficiency target.

Isn't it a bit late for that?
They are certainly not going to scale back the performance levels in high performing offices so what's the realistic efficiency target in those offices?
What you really mean is what is a realistic efficiency improvement target but that only really addresses the problems in poor performing offices. Is that the union's main remit now? Protect the poorest performing? See how long you can spin out the flightpath from 66EP to 100EP?
10 years? 20 years? Never?
Meanwhile back in the real world it's business as usual.

[dvbuk55]

I'm still intrigued by the secret incentive scheme, or are they waiting for the euphoria of receiving the back pay before the slam dunk of yet another worthless scheme

[Budfrog]

If you don't have reporting systems that are accurate then any incentive system based on such will be inherently unfair and should not be used as the basis for any bonus payments. Aside from those units who carry surplus staff the difference between the best and worst is not as wide as many would imagine if attended rather than paid for hours were used to calculate efficiency. If the methods and setup of a unit do not promote high performance you could also argue that it would be unethical to penalise staff when the EP is a driven by the development of such by planners/management or ..... dare I say .... WCM

[Martin Walsh]

Fish it is only too late if now Mark Higson has gone that Royal Mail continue to use the flawed measurement system which is BSI. it was never a performance tool the CWU endorsed. Let's look at how flawed this measurement is one office is at 107 bsi Forest Gate most of the office come in at least an hour early which is not recorded and whilst they are meant to have porters and sorters but those who come in early clear the ips in any case. None of this is recorded properly so they have an inflated bsi.

Let's look at other flaws it required a DOM to record hours worked an lasped including the Dirt report. It is not done by all DOMs.

Let's look at where an office has an indoor problem and someone protracts due to not getting out on time then this is not recorded as indoor hourage.

The BSI efficiency target is simply a flawed measurement system.

Other efficiency methods are weighted items per gross work hours where places like The bigger cities are more efficient due to having more Mail go to businesses.

Now the challenge is what really is going to measure efficiency in public limited company in the future is it how much does it cost to deliver a letter or different steams of Mail per cash work hour or is it a bsi measurement which is meant to measure every part of your office and is meant to record all hours accurately.

The agreement states one of the programme of works to review efficiency to understand whether is achievable , realistic and sustainable.

The fact mark Higson who was obsessed with statistics is now gone and replace with someone who has a reputation of being far more people minded is encouraging.

Let's see if it is really too late.

[Glenno]

The BSI efficiency target is simply a flawed measurement system.

Dingo are you saying that now Higson has gone that RM /CWU are moving away from BSI as a measure?? Glenno

[trythat]

The BSI efficiency target is simply a flawed measurement system.

So what do I do, when I'm being pushed to agree to BSI of 95%+ with a quasi IWM revision? Do I kept on trying to get information and have accusations leveled at me of being awkward and deliberately being a PITA, shouldn't all IWM be on hold until these reviews have taken place?

[chrisj]

Should it not be a case of whether the jobs are doable and that the walks are properly planned and staffed? Or is that too simple?

[Budfrog]

The BSI efficiency target is simply a flawed measurement system.

The ratification of office EPs would or would not prove as much and it is something that CWU should be insisting on as a part of the review. Select offices of different sizes with a range of reported EPs (high/medium/low) as your sample and get RM to utilise some of their own IEs (or contract ones) to conduct rated activity sampling over a representative period of time - the results should be +/- 5% (with 95% Confidence) and would be interesting reading

In terms of cost by comparison to other initiatives (WCM) this would be a drop in the ocean but it would at least demonstrate that RM are willing to try and become a 'Can Do' organisation that is trying to build things on concrete rather than sand.