What are we doing with your blog feedback?
Filed under Engineering
Tags: APC, automated postal center, feedback, kiosks, pallets
After blogging for several months, the Office of Inspector General wants you to know how it’s going. So far, we’ve posted seven blogs (including this one) and received more than 100 comments. There have been a number of thoughtful observations about the Postal Service, and the Mail Transport Equipment blog actually led to a tip that resulted in the recovery of some pallets.
Our most successful post so far has been “Self Service Mail Technologies”. More than 150 people participated in the survey questions about Automated Postal Centers (APCs) — the Postal Service’s self-service kiosks. As the charts below show, as of the time of this post, 76 percent of participants said they were aware of APCs, and 81 percent said they would be more likely to use the Postal Service if self-service machines were conveniently located where they shop. We intend to incorporate your survey responses and comments into our work on APCs.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, and please continue to comment. We’d also like to hear your ideas for new blog topics. What topics should we address in 2009? We welcome your suggestions.
Print This Post
E-mail This Post
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
7 Responses to “What are we doing with your blog feedback?”
Leave a Reply
You no longer have to register to comment. You can still login on the side panel to have your comments associated with your username.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
What about a blog on how the Office of Inspector General works?
[Click Here to Reply to This Comment]
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I have contacted you previously and the USPS law department…no response from either.
I believe it to be a conflict of interest for you to include a link to the ‘personal’ website of a current USPS employee on your blog. Your link indirectly creates ‘personal’ income for this person.
How can you do this or, in your opinion, why is this not a conflict of interest and a violation of postal law and federal law?
[Click Here to Reply to This Comment]
Blog Editor Reply:
January 5th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Thank you for your comment. After reviewing your concern, we have decided to take down the RSS feed. We appreciate your feedback.
[Click Here to Reply to This Comment]
Just Curious Reply:
January 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Hi, Blog Editor. Hey, is the RSS feed disabled or is the link to the personal website disabled? Very interested in this blog and would love to have an RSS feed. Thanks for the great work!
[Click Here to Reply to This Comment]
Blog Editor Reply:
January 6th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
We’ve taken off an RSS feed to an external site. You can still use the RSS link in the upper right corner for this blog’s content.
Bertie the Bunyip Reply:
January 9th, 2009 at 2:06 am
What isn’t a violation of Postal regulations.
That’s us in a nutshell.
We are the Washington Generals, the team that always plays against the Harlem Globetrotters.
WE ARE NEVER SUPPOSED TO WIN!
[Click Here to Reply to This Comment]
January 9th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Universal service obligations.
The USO is not being met when the USPS does not fulfill its obligation to meet costs and not pass excessive costs to mailers.
For example. If a 10MM investment is required to have equipment meet or exceed current USPS engineering standards, it might be acceptable to alter the physical mail standards as an avoidance to incurring that fee. For any business without a USO that would be acceptable.
The USPS, however, has an USO. And will not meet its USO if they pass on the costs to the American mailing public. You see, the 10MM cost guestimate was for the USPS. The actual cost, by phasing in alterations of physical mail, to American business is astronomical.
Would anyone on this blog care to take a guess as to how much this is going to cost you in terms of:
1. learning curve
2. engineering of non-existing equipment to facilitate nonrealistic standards
3. investment in so-called, and as of yet non-identified, equipment for new standard
4. money lost in an investment that will ultimately prove unwise and unnessary as the standards are challeged by class action law suit. (You see, the same statute that prescibes that the USPS does not have to incorporate your comments into rulemaking also points out that the USPS can sue, and be sued in its official name.)
5. clients lost
6. jobs lost
Or didn’t you get my invitation to investigate if USPS vendors made a pitch to USPS personnel on how “cost prohibitive” it would be to reengineer their equipment? It seems as if someone, or some few persons decided it would be cheaper to dump on the mailers. Bad idea, guys. I’ve even read where they recommend using larger tabs and wafer seals. Stupid idea since no one has requalified the peel adhesion rate, or did someone silence the engineers who originally tested peel adhesion rates for the last couple of years?
Itza blog. So blog on, OIG.
[Click Here to Reply to This Comment]