LTB 406/20 - Mail Centre Processing - Alphanumeric Barcoding

[TrueBlueTerrier]

LTB 406/20 - Mail Centre Processing - Alphanumeric Barcoding

No: 406/2020
31st July 2020

For the Immediate Attention of All:

Postal Branches
Divisional Representatives
Area Processing Representatives

Dear Colleagues

Mail Centre Processing – Alphanumeric Barcoding

Branches and representatives are informed that the department have been receiving enquiries over recent days in relation to documentation that is the field regarding changes to sorting methods for Tracked items, which utilises Alphanumeric coding on barcodes.

We can advise that a meeting has taken place with the business in relation to the issue and the department have been informed that the business are introducing a simplified Alphanumeric sorting method into Mail Centres for both the Inward and Outward Tracked areas, from the 10th August 2020.

The change in method involves the use of Alphanumeric coding on barcodes for Tracked items. This method has been used successfully in the RDC’s for some time and is now being introduced into Mail Centres to provide uniformity.

The business have advised that it is now possible to introduce the method into Mail Centres, as a threshold level of c80% has now been achieved in relation to the inclusion of Alphanumeric coding on barcodes for Tracked items.

The business have confirmed that the move to Alphanumeric coding is a change in designation rather than an actual change to sort selections. Therefore, the number of sort selections remains the same and the use of the Alphanumeric process provides one cohesive plan for Tracked items.

It is not anticipated that the change in method will have any impact on headcount or presentation to Delivery Offices.

Attached for information is documentation that the business has shared with the department in relation to the change.

Any enquiries in relation to this LTB should be addressed to Davie Robertson, Assistant Secretary, email: dwyatt@cwu.org quoting reference: 709.02

Yours sincerely

Davie Robertson

Assistant Secretary

LTB 406/20 https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-cldkykd-jtfltzjh-i/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Annex A – Tracked Alphanumeric Sorting Ops Brief v1.0 https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-cldkykd-jtfltzjh-d/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Annex B – Alphanumerical Tracked Label Example https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-cldkykd-jtfltzjh-h/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Annex C – Copy of Alphanumeric Outward Secondary Road Breakdown August 2020_v1.0 https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-cldkykd-jtfltzjh-k/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Annex D – Manual Pcls_Bullring Setups_COVID19_Ver 0.2 https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-cldkykd-jtfltzjh-u/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Annex E – Copy of Alaphanumeric_Deployment_Mail_Centre_Activites_Timeline_v1.0 https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-cldkykd-jtfltzjh-o/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Annex F – Alphanumerical Sorting Aid Examples https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-cldkykd-jtfltzjh-b/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Annex G – Copy of Tracked Coding MASTER_Jan 2020_Ver 002 https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-cldkykd-jtfltzjh-n/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

View Online https://emails.cwu.org/t/d-l-cldkykd-jtfltzjh-p/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpacePhoenix]

Sounds like RM are getting ready to possibly move all Tracked to the hubs and not just the large stuff

[Tamsk]

Outward maybe, but I can't see this being brought in for inward at our place any time soon (and we haven't had any kind of briefing about it being so). Eyeballing it last night, there was nowhere near 80% of packets with an inward alphanumeric on them; more like 30%, 40% at most, with it not being on a lot of the higher-volume stuff (Amazon, M&S, River Island...). Also, there's at least three codes just in what our MC covers that would cause missorts or change selections (it doesn't handle a couple of sub-sector range exceptions, and doesn't distinguish two selections for one of our DOs). Half-baked as usual from RM?

[SpacePhoenix]

Outward maybe, but I can't see this being brought in for inward at our place any time soon (and we haven't had any kind of briefing about it being so). Eyeballing it last night, there was nowhere near 80% of packets with an inward alphanumeric on them; more like 30%, 40% at most, with it not being on a lot of the higher-volume stuff (Amazon, M&S, River Island...). Also, there's at least three codes just in what our MC covers that would cause missorts or change selections (it doesn't handle a couple of sub-sector range exceptions, and doesn't distinguish two selections for one of our DOs). Half-baked as usual from RM?

Probably not hard to implement, just encode 2 or 3 extra characters to the end of the barcodes and a tweak to the PDA software to have them ignore the extra characters.

RM could alter the terms of use to force sending companies to add it

[tractorboy2]

Outward maybe, but I can't see this being brought in for inward at our place any time soon (and we haven't had any kind of briefing about it being so). Eyeballing it last night, there was nowhere near 80% of packets with an inward alphanumeric on them; more like 30%, 40% at most, with it not being on a lot of the higher-volume stuff (Amazon, M&S, River Island...). Also, there's at least three codes just in what our MC covers that would cause missorts or change selections (it doesn't handle a couple of sub-sector range exceptions, and doesn't distinguish two selections for one of our DOs). Half-baked as usual from RM?

Yes , some of them have the same code for different delivery offices , bit of a joke really.

[Steve_claret]

Outward maybe, but I can't see this being brought in for inward at our place any time soon (and we haven't had any kind of briefing about it being so). Eyeballing it last night, there was nowhere near 80% of packets with an inward alphanumeric on them; more like 30%, 40% at most, with it not being on a lot of the higher-volume stuff (Amazon, M&S, River Island...). Also, there's at least three codes just in what our MC covers that would cause missorts or change selections (it doesn't handle a couple of sub-sector range exceptions, and doesn't distinguish two selections for one of our DOs). Half-baked as usual from RM?

Yes , some of them have the same code for different delivery offices , bit of a joke really.

Wouldn't you like to think that somebody in the local MC has OK'd the inward alphanumeric sortation codes based on their current DO sortation?
It makes you wonder who has come up with these new codes. Probably the same person who can't spell Edinburgh correctly.

[SpacePhoenix]

Outward maybe, but I can't see this being brought in for inward at our place any time soon (and we haven't had any kind of briefing about it being so). Eyeballing it last night, there was nowhere near 80% of packets with an inward alphanumeric on them; more like 30%, 40% at most, with it not being on a lot of the higher-volume stuff (Amazon, M&S, River Island...). Also, there's at least three codes just in what our MC covers that would cause missorts or change selections (it doesn't handle a couple of sub-sector range exceptions, and doesn't distinguish two selections for one of our DOs). Half-baked as usual from RM?

Yes , some of them have the same code for different delivery offices , bit of a joke really.

Wouldn't you like to think that somebody in the local MC has OK'd the inward alphanumeric sortation codes based on their current DO sortation?
It makes you wonder who has come up with these new codes. Probably the same person who can't spell Edinburgh correctly.

There's more than likely some DOs somewhere in the country that will get a partial breakdown on their mail (maybe a 3 or 4 way split if it's a really large DO). Maybe RM plan on having 1 selection per physical DO

[Steve_claret]

There's more than likely some DOs somewhere in the country that will get a partial breakdown on their mail (maybe a 3 or 4 way split if it's a really large DO). Maybe RM plan on having 1 selection per physical DO

If they do go to one selection per physical office particularly for Tracked parcels then it's not before time.

[postpersondorset]

this has been in planning way before xmas 2019

inward tracked in Mail Centres would have had the manager involved ,as to how each MC breaks down the sortation ,so if it doesn't work ,see the local manager in charge of the tracked work area.


not just Edinburgh spelt correctly. ( look at C I )

[Steve_claret]

What's wrong with Gurensey?

[postpersondorset]

What's wrong with Gurensey?

guERnsey

[Lockardian]

We’ve been using the alphanumeric codes for inward Tracked sorting for several months, and we still get items with the wrong Alphanumeric code on them (the inward part) so this mail is constantly mis-sorted as most people only look at the code and nothing else (that’s how management trained us) - and we were also told to deliberately mis-sort these items so the DO would pick up on the error and correct it. Except the DOs can’t and/or don’t correct them! So you can get the same mail piece bouncing between MC and incorrect DO for several days or longer (even if they write the correct DO on the item, this is often ignored as per training!). I’ve no idea how this represents good service! No-one seems to have a clue how to amend incorrect codes either.

One of the problems I’ve noticed is if a postcode of say AN1 2QQ is written as AN12QQ, with no spacing, the “system” tends to recognise this as AN12, and therefore allocates the wrong DO/inward code to the item. That’s not the only time the codes are incorrect, but it’s certainly a common example.

Does this sound familiar to anyone else? How are you trained to sort the Tracked items - purely by alphanumeric code, or by cross-checking the code with the postcode/locality? Personally, regardless of new training instructions, I always quickly look at the locality and/or postcode as well as the AN code, and if there’s an anomaly, I use my judgement. You sometimes get an item with a valid AN inward code, but for the wrong mail centre (different AN outward code) and easily spotted when you see the postcode/locality.

[Tamsk]

Our place has never adopted alphanumeric sorting for inward on nights; the T-boards listing them were around for a few months after the initial introduction announced in this LTB, and I believe other shifts might have used them to some extent, but our manager heavily discouraged them (we didn't alter our bullring layouts to match their sequence, for example), and they've been pretty much forgotten about now. Personally, I refer to them for things they tend to be solidly reliable for (COVID test kits, for example) because they're that much larger and more visible, or for those "ok, want one more parcel of such-and-such a size to fill up this york of large, let's glance over the waiting work to see if there's anything immediately apparent going to the right office" moments, but in general, it's solely by the postcode (sanity-checked by the town; quite willing to correct an obviously mistaken postcode. Deliberately missorting isn't on the menu).

[SpacePhoenix]

We only use them for Outward mail. For inward we just have york header labels. I believe that where the alphanumeric barcodes are used everyone sorts to the code. If we know that an item has got the wrong code or is being redirected or RTSd then often we'll cross out the wrong code

[Tman]

One of the problems I’ve noticed is if a postcode of say AN1 2QQ is written as AN12QQ, with no spacing, the “system” tends to recognise this as AN12, and therefore allocates the wrong DO/inward code to the item. That’s not the only time the codes are incorrect, but it’s certainly a common example.

The software doesn't need a "space" to interpret the code. If you manually input a postcode for testing purposes no space is inputted between the characters.