CDZ In what disciplines do you think a President should be an expert or near expert?

[Asclepias]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

The system was designed by your forefathers to facilitate slow change. Politics is a required part of being the POTUS. if you take out that check then you effectively have a dictatorship.

 

[oldsoul]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

I hardly think that FedEx is a model of efficency and performance. Consider this, when FedEx has an airplane on the ground needing parts before it flys again, they ship said parts UPS. Why would a shipping company ship parts for themselves via tha competition unless the competition is better at it than they are?

That said, I do agree with your last paragragh, just not the part about FedEx.

 

[320 Years of History]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

I hardly think that FedEx is a model of efficency and performance. Consider this, when FedEx has an airplane on the ground needing parts before it flys again, they ship said parts UPS. Why would a shipping company ship parts for themselves via tha competition unless the competition is better at it than they are?

That said, I do agree with your last paragragh, just not the part about FedEx.

I think you may want to explore that a bit more...I am certain that upon doing so, you'll find there's ample business reason for why they do as you describe. You'll also find out that the reason you posit isn't among the reasons they do it.

You'll find some conceptual input here:

• For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office

Simply put, the cost to ship one package isn't relevant when it's most important to get the parcel to where it's needed ASAP. If that means using UPS, then it just does. UPS, FedEx and the USPS have agreements amongst themselves for using each other's service. It's not new; they've been doing it for some time now, and it's a good thing for what all three of them provided is a commodity service, the delivery of "stuff" folks don't want to transport themselves.

 

[FA_Q2]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

I hardly think that FedEx is a model of efficency and performance. Consider this, when FedEx has an airplane on the ground needing parts before it flys again, they ship said parts UPS. Why would a shipping company ship parts for themselves via tha competition unless the competition is better at it than they are?

That said, I do agree with your last paragragh, just not the part about FedEx.

I think you may want to explore that a bit more...I am certain that upon doing so, you'll find there's ample business reason for why they do as you describe. You'll also find out that the reason you posit isn't among the reasons they do it.

You'll find some conceptual input here:

• For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office

Simply put, the cost to ship one package isn't relevant when it's most important to get the parcel to where it's needed ASAP. If that means using UPS, then it just does. UPS, FedEx and the USPS have agreements amongst themselves for using each other's service. It's not new; they've been doing it for some time now, and it's a good thing for what all three of them provided is a commodity service, the delivery of "stuff" folks don't want to transport themselves.

Your article is behind a paywall.

Without reading it I cannot make a judgement on what it means when you or the article makes a claim that the USPS is a cheaper solution. I have a suspicion that it has to do with the fact that it is illegal for either of the former to use first class post.

 

[9thIDdoc]

History is one. Law should be listed.

 

[320 Years of History]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

I hardly think that FedEx is a model of efficency and performance. Consider this, when FedEx has an airplane on the ground needing parts before it flys again, they ship said parts UPS. Why would a shipping company ship parts for themselves via tha competition unless the competition is better at it than they are?

That said, I do agree with your last paragragh, just not the part about FedEx.

I think you may want to explore that a bit more...I am certain that upon doing so, you'll find there's ample business reason for why they do as you describe. You'll also find out that the reason you posit isn't among the reasons they do it.

You'll find some conceptual input here:

• For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office

Simply put, the cost to ship one package isn't relevant when it's most important to get the parcel to where it's needed ASAP. If that means using UPS, then it just does. UPS, FedEx and the USPS have agreements amongst themselves for using each other's service. It's not new; they've been doing it for some time now, and it's a good thing for what all three of them provided is a commodity service, the delivery of "stuff" folks don't want to transport themselves.

Your article is behind a paywall.

Without reading it I cannot make a judgement on what it means when you or the article makes a claim that the USPS is a cheaper solution. I have a suspicion that it has to do with the fact that it is illegal for either of the former to use first class post.

Oh, sorry...

FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc. increasingly are moving their own packages through the U.S. Postal Service, putting pressure on the quasi-governmental agency and raising questions about whether the USPS is charging enough for the service.


FedEx and United Parcel Service increasingly are moving their own packages through the U.S. Postal Service, putting pressure on the quasi-governmental agency and raising questions about whether the USPS is charging enough for the service. Laura Stevens joins MoneyBeat. Photo: Getty Images.
For FedEx alone, the post office delivers an average of 2.2 million packages a day, or about 30% of the express-mail company's total U.S. ground segment.

UPS won't specify how much of its shipments go through the post office, but a regulatory filing indicates those types of lightweight shipments accounted for 40%—or about 37 million packages—of its total increase in ground shipments in 2012.

The post office is lapping up the extra package-delivery business from its private-sector rivals because it badly needs growth. In the past decade, it has lost more than 30% of its most profitable product—first-class mail—to the Internet.

We've been focusing a lot of efforts on package growth, because that's the biggest opportunity for us," said Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe.

But the flood of these packages has begun to tax the system, and it has raised questions about whether the USPS is charging enough for its service. Even as UPS makes use of the USPS, a UPS executive on the company's earnings conference call last month questioned whether the Postal Service is unfairly cross-subsidizing certain products to offer lower prices.

The volume of so-called Parcel Select packages—a USPS service aimed at businesses including FedEx, UPS, and Amazon.com Inc.— surged nearly 500% to about 1.29 billion packages in 2013 from about 223 million in 2009. The USPS projects that service it will grow 12% next year. Parcel Select accounts for 35% of the USPS's annual package-delivery business.

Both UPS and FedEx rely on the postal office for the back-end of their cheaper two- to seven-day delivery options, Smartpost for FedEx and Surepost for UPS. Amazon also uses the USPS and enlisted it for Sunday deliveries. The post office's Parcel Select service, launched in its current format in 2008, allows the companies to transport the packages the long distance themselves, then sort by ZIP Code and deliver to the local post office. The letter carrier takes it for the most expensive last leg of the delivery.

Some critics question whether the Postal Service is charging the delivery services enough. Revenue per Parcel Select package averaged about $1.71 in the second quarter, according to a quarterly filing. FedEx averages $1.78 in revenue per package on its Smartpost business. UPS doesn't disclose its Surepost revenue.

Analysts estimate Amazon pays about $2 to mail a package via the Postal Service versus $7 or $8 for UPS or FedEx ground. Late last year Amazon cut out the middleman—FedEx—and started taking most of its packages to the Postal Service, analysts say. FedEx Smartpost volume dropped 8% in the quarter ended in May, FedEx reported.

Neither the Postal Service nor these big customers will reveal contract terms. "There should be more transparency" to make sure the agency is properly compensated, says Mark Jamison, a retired Postmaster from North Carolina, a frequent critic.

Mr. Donahoe says the criticism is unwarranted. "We make money on it. We wouldn't do it if we didn't make money on it," Mr. Donahoe said.

Postal carriers are already delivering to every mailbox, so transporting the presorted packages doesn't add significantly to costs, he said.

Rates have increased 27% from an average of $1.35 in revenue per package in 2012, according to postal filings.

First-class mail still accounts for nearly half of the USPS's revenue, while standard mail, such as advertising and circulars, account for about 25%. Packages—including those from FedEx and UPS—account for about 20% of the post office's revenue but are the fastest-growing, averaging 7% annual revenue growth the past four years.

The Postal Service is aiming to more than double its package-delivery business within a few years, Mr. Donahoe said.

The post office, established in 1775 to enable secure communications during the Revolutionary War, was designed for letters, not packages, and it is aging. About 140,000 of its 200,000 mail vehicles are more than 20 years old. The service also isn't nearly as automated as FedEx and UPS.

At FedEx and UPS, packages typically are automatically scanned on belts that deposit them directly to designated delivery vans. At local post offices, by contrast, mail carriers often sort packages manually and carry them to their trucks. Shelves to stack packages have been squeezed into tiny delivery trucks. The number of career postal employees has declined nearly 30% over the past seven years, and some mail carriers tend their routes twice a day, once with letters and once with packages.

To accommodate the growth, Mr. Donahoe plans to invest $10 billion over the next four years for improvements, including buying new vehicles, retrofitting old ones and upgrading package-sorting equipment.

It is unclear how the post office will finance growth, as it is chronically short on funds. Because the Postal Service has enough cash on hand for only about two weeks of operations, Mr. Donahoe is counting on Congress to pass a proposed bill that would give the Postal Service more financial flexibility, with options like cutting Saturday letter delivery. The Postal Service reached its $15 billion credit limit with the Treasury Department in 2012.

Under law, the USPS must pay its own way. It generated $67.3 billion in revenue in 2013, $7.5 billion of which came from selling stamps. It doesn't receive an annual taxpayer subsidy, but is reimbursed by Congress for some services such as delivering mail to the blind and overseas voters.

The USPS has generated about $1 billion in operating profit so far this year, but that is before its approximate $5.5 billion required annual contribution for retiree benefits.

There is little margin for error. If it misjudges its capacity or financial strength, it could end up with too many packages to deliver, compromising mail service. "Without significant structural changes, we will…continue on a path that will lead to insolvency and a government bailout," the postal service warned this summer.​

 

[oldsoul]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

I hardly think that FedEx is a model of efficency and performance. Consider this, when FedEx has an airplane on the ground needing parts before it flys again, they ship said parts UPS. Why would a shipping company ship parts for themselves via tha competition unless the competition is better at it than they are?

That said, I do agree with your last paragragh, just not the part about FedEx.

I think you may want to explore that a bit more...I am certain that upon doing so, you'll find there's ample business reason for why they do as you describe. You'll also find out that the reason you posit isn't among the reasons they do it.

You'll find some conceptual input here:

• For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office

Simply put, the cost to ship one package isn't relevant when it's most important to get the parcel to where it's needed ASAP. If that means using UPS, then it just does. UPS, FedEx and the USPS have agreements amongst themselves for using each other's service. It's not new; they've been doing it for some time now, and it's a good thing for what all three of them provided is a commodity service, the delivery of "stuff" folks don't want to transport themselves.

On the contrary, unless something has changed in recent years, UPS ships their own parts in the same situation. I just find it quite interesting that FedEx was put up as an example of efficincy when they, and they alone, use a third party to ship their own parts.

 

[320 Years of History]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

I hardly think that FedEx is a model of efficency and performance. Consider this, when FedEx has an airplane on the ground needing parts before it flys again, they ship said parts UPS. Why would a shipping company ship parts for themselves via tha competition unless the competition is better at it than they are?

That said, I do agree with your last paragragh, just not the part about FedEx.

I think you may want to explore that a bit more...I am certain that upon doing so, you'll find there's ample business reason for why they do as you describe. You'll also find out that the reason you posit isn't among the reasons they do it.

You'll find some conceptual input here:

• For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office

Simply put, the cost to ship one package isn't relevant when it's most important to get the parcel to where it's needed ASAP. If that means using UPS, then it just does. UPS, FedEx and the USPS have agreements amongst themselves for using each other's service. It's not new; they've been doing it for some time now, and it's a good thing for what all three of them provided is a commodity service, the delivery of "stuff" folks don't want to transport themselves.

On the contrary, unless something has changed in recent years, UPS ships their own parts in the same situation. I just find it quite interesting that FedEx was put up as an example of efficincy when they, and they alone, use a third party to ship their own parts.

Perhaps the distinction between supplies inventory and customer parcels is what distinguishes what UPS ship using their competition's services? I don't know. It was in the 1990s that I participated on an engagement for UPS. There's no way I can say their procedures from then are still in force now; I've even switched firms since then and even back then, the UPS relationship wasn't one I "owned."

As for the simple reality of any of the "big three" shippers using the competitor's services, that doesn't surprise me at all. Indeed, if a mission critical parcel can be delivered with greater alacrity by doing so, it makes sense that they would do so insofar as operational key success factors that business have hinge on temporal logistics. Their profit increases in indirect proportion to the time a parcel stays within their systems. (Faster a parcel moves --> Less time needed to deliver --> Less time "in the system" per package = greater overall capacity --> Greater capacity leads to greater revenue and lower costs (greater customer satisfaction; greater cost recovery for physical space) --> Greater profit.)

I can imagine shippers like UPS and FedEx not taking that POV re: non-critical supplies inventory being moved throughout their internal units, for there isn't a revenue generating requirement for internal repair and maintenance units. However, in instance where the part in question is essential to get a revenue generating piece of equipment back "on line," and "in time," they may elect to use a competitor if that service provider has a plane, truck, boat, whatever leaving sooner and using them will allow the shipper to meet its own temporal logistic requirements and resource usage requirements/goals. Furthermore, I would expect the choice in supplies inventory transport scenarios to be a "case-by-case" decision for things breaking and needing repair is, though it happens and one knows it will, all the same an "exception process" in the overall scheme of business processes, unlike routine/recurring maintenance, which is not an "exception process."

P.S.
I had hoped not to have to delve into business process optimization concepts here, but....

 

[jwoodie]

So let's elect a business executive who knows how to get things done. Wait a minute....

 

[oldsoul]

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

I hardly think that FedEx is a model of efficency and performance. Consider this, when FedEx has an airplane on the ground needing parts before it flys again, they ship said parts UPS. Why would a shipping company ship parts for themselves via tha competition unless the competition is better at it than they are?

That said, I do agree with your last paragragh, just not the part about FedEx.

I think you may want to explore that a bit more...I am certain that upon doing so, you'll find there's ample business reason for why they do as you describe. You'll also find out that the reason you posit isn't among the reasons they do it.

You'll find some conceptual input here:

• For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office

Simply put, the cost to ship one package isn't relevant when it's most important to get the parcel to where it's needed ASAP. If that means using UPS, then it just does. UPS, FedEx and the USPS have agreements amongst themselves for using each other's service. It's not new; they've been doing it for some time now, and it's a good thing for what all three of them provided is a commodity service, the delivery of "stuff" folks don't want to transport themselves.

On the contrary, unless something has changed in recent years, UPS ships their own parts in the same situation. I just find it quite interesting that FedEx was put up as an example of efficincy when they, and they alone, use a third party to ship their own parts.

Perhaps the distinction between supplies inventory and customer parcels is what distinguishes what UPS ship using their competition's services? I don't know. It was in the 1990s that I participated on an engagement for UPS. There's no way I can say their procedures from then are still in force now; I've even switched firms since then and even back then, the UPS relationship wasn't one I "owned."

As for the simple reality of any of the "big three" shippers using the competitor's services, that doesn't surprise me at all. Indeed, if a mission critical parcel can be delivered with greater alacrity by doing so, it makes sense that they would do so insofar as operational key success factors that business have hinge on temporal logistics. Their profit increases in indirect proportion to the time a parcel stays within their systems. (Faster a parcel moves --> Less time needed to deliver --> Less time "in the system" per package = greater overall capacity --> Greater capacity leads to greater revenue and lower costs (greater customer satisfaction; greater cost recovery for physical space) --> Greater profit.)

I can imagine shippers like UPS and FedEx not taking that POV re: non-critical supplies inventory being moved throughout their internal units, for there isn't a revenue generating requirement for internal repair and maintenance units. However, in instance where the part in question is essential to get a revenue generating piece of equipment back "on line," and "in time," they may elect to use a competitor if that service provider has a plane, truck, boat, whatever leaving sooner and using them will allow the shipper to meet its own temporal logistic requirements and resource usage requirements/goals. Furthermore, I would expect the choice in supplies inventory transport scenarios to be a "case-by-case" decision for things breaking and needing repair is, though it happens and one knows it will, all the same an "exception process" in the overall scheme of business processes, unlike routine/recurring maintenance, which is not an "exception process."

P.S.
I had hoped not to have to delve into business process optimization concepts here, but....

While interesting and informative, I think you are missing my point. FedEx uses UPS to ship parts as a SOP, or at least they used to. This is not an exception, but a practice. UPS ships their parts themselves. So, using the information above, if I understand it correctly, there are two potential reasons for this.
Either:

1. UPS can get it there faster/more cost-effectively. Or,
2. FedEx chooses to spend the money instead of tying up valuable space in their own system.

Either way, I don't see how FedEx can be put up as a model of efficiency as they are either spending more than they need too, or are less efficient than the competition. Possibly both.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

I hardly think that FedEx is a model of efficency and performance. Consider this, when FedEx has an airplane on the ground needing parts before it flys again, they ship said parts UPS. Why would a shipping company ship parts for themselves via tha competition unless the competition is better at it than they are?

That said, I do agree with your last paragragh, just not the part about FedEx.

I think you may want to explore that a bit more...I am certain that upon doing so, you'll find there's ample business reason for why they do as you describe. You'll also find out that the reason you posit isn't among the reasons they do it.

You'll find some conceptual input here:

• For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office

Simply put, the cost to ship one package isn't relevant when it's most important to get the parcel to where it's needed ASAP. If that means using UPS, then it just does. UPS, FedEx and the USPS have agreements amongst themselves for using each other's service. It's not new; they've been doing it for some time now, and it's a good thing for what all three of them provided is a commodity service, the delivery of "stuff" folks don't want to transport themselves.

On the contrary, unless something has changed in recent years, UPS ships their own parts in the same situation. I just find it quite interesting that FedEx was put up as an example of efficincy when they, and they alone, use a third party to ship their own parts.

Perhaps the distinction between supplies inventory and customer parcels is what distinguishes what UPS ship using their competition's services? I don't know. It was in the 1990s that I participated on an engagement for UPS. There's no way I can say their procedures from then are still in force now; I've even switched firms since then and even back then, the UPS relationship wasn't one I "owned."

As for the simple reality of any of the "big three" shippers using the competitor's services, that doesn't surprise me at all. Indeed, if a mission critical parcel can be delivered with greater alacrity by doing so, it makes sense that they would do so insofar as operational key success factors that business have hinge on temporal logistics. Their profit increases in indirect proportion to the time a parcel stays within their systems. (Faster a parcel moves --> Less time needed to deliver --> Less time "in the system" per package = greater overall capacity --> Greater capacity leads to greater revenue and lower costs (greater customer satisfaction; greater cost recovery for physical space) --> Greater profit.)

I can imagine shippers like UPS and FedEx not taking that POV re: non-critical supplies inventory being moved throughout their internal units, for there isn't a revenue generating requirement for internal repair and maintenance units. However, in instance where the part in question is essential to get a revenue generating piece of equipment back "on line," and "in time," they may elect to use a competitor if that service provider has a plane, truck, boat, whatever leaving sooner and using them will allow the shipper to meet its own temporal logistic requirements and resource usage requirements/goals. Furthermore, I would expect the choice in supplies inventory transport scenarios to be a "case-by-case" decision for things breaking and needing repair is, though it happens and one knows it will, all the same an "exception process" in the overall scheme of business processes, unlike routine/recurring maintenance, which is not an "exception process."

P.S.
I had hoped not to have to delve into business process optimization concepts here, but....

While interesting and informative, I think you are missing my point. FedEx uses UPS to ship parts as a SOP, or at least they used to. This [was] not an exception, but a practice. UPS ships their parts themselves. So, using the information above, if I understand it correctly, there are two potential reasons for this.
Either:

1. UPS can get it there faster/more cost-effectively. Or,
2. FedEx chooses to spend the money instead of tying up valuable space in their own system.

Either way, I don't see how FedEx can be put up as a model of efficiency as they are either spending more than they need too, or are less efficient than the competition. Possibly both.

Red:
Note my tense correction. Let me know if it's incorrect.

I did indeed "miss" that as being your point, but then you didn't present it as you now have.

I have no direct experience with FedEx, as I have with UPS and USPS, that would allow me to understand their specific business processes, practices, and policies.

Blue:
As for whether FedEx or UPS is more or less efficient than the other, it's hard to say and be 100% accurate at the level of conversation we're having. I accept that anyone can make a judgment call, and that's exactly what business analysts do when examining the players in the transportation industry.

 

[oldsoul]

I hardly think that FedEx is a model of efficency and performance. Consider this, when FedEx has an airplane on the ground needing parts before it flys again, they ship said parts UPS. Why would a shipping company ship parts for themselves via tha competition unless the competition is better at it than they are?

That said, I do agree with your last paragragh, just not the part about FedEx.

I think you may want to explore that a bit more...I am certain that upon doing so, you'll find there's ample business reason for why they do as you describe. You'll also find out that the reason you posit isn't among the reasons they do it.

You'll find some conceptual input here:

• For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office

Simply put, the cost to ship one package isn't relevant when it's most important to get the parcel to where it's needed ASAP. If that means using UPS, then it just does. UPS, FedEx and the USPS have agreements amongst themselves for using each other's service. It's not new; they've been doing it for some time now, and it's a good thing for what all three of them provided is a commodity service, the delivery of "stuff" folks don't want to transport themselves.

On the contrary, unless something has changed in recent years, UPS ships their own parts in the same situation. I just find it quite interesting that FedEx was put up as an example of efficincy when they, and they alone, use a third party to ship their own parts.

Perhaps the distinction between supplies inventory and customer parcels is what distinguishes what UPS ship using their competition's services? I don't know. It was in the 1990s that I participated on an engagement for UPS. There's no way I can say their procedures from then are still in force now; I've even switched firms since then and even back then, the UPS relationship wasn't one I "owned."

As for the simple reality of any of the "big three" shippers using the competitor's services, that doesn't surprise me at all. Indeed, if a mission critical parcel can be delivered with greater alacrity by doing so, it makes sense that they would do so insofar as operational key success factors that business have hinge on temporal logistics. Their profit increases in indirect proportion to the time a parcel stays within their systems. (Faster a parcel moves --> Less time needed to deliver --> Less time "in the system" per package = greater overall capacity --> Greater capacity leads to greater revenue and lower costs (greater customer satisfaction; greater cost recovery for physical space) --> Greater profit.)

I can imagine shippers like UPS and FedEx not taking that POV re: non-critical supplies inventory being moved throughout their internal units, for there isn't a revenue generating requirement for internal repair and maintenance units. However, in instance where the part in question is essential to get a revenue generating piece of equipment back "on line," and "in time," they may elect to use a competitor if that service provider has a plane, truck, boat, whatever leaving sooner and using them will allow the shipper to meet its own temporal logistic requirements and resource usage requirements/goals. Furthermore, I would expect the choice in supplies inventory transport scenarios to be a "case-by-case" decision for things breaking and needing repair is, though it happens and one knows it will, all the same an "exception process" in the overall scheme of business processes, unlike routine/recurring maintenance, which is not an "exception process."

P.S.
I had hoped not to have to delve into business process optimization concepts here, but....

While interesting and informative, I think you are missing my point. FedEx uses UPS to ship parts as a SOP, or at least they used to. This [was] not an exception, but a practice. UPS ships their parts themselves. So, using the information above, if I understand it correctly, there are two potential reasons for this.
Either:

1. UPS can get it there faster/more cost-effectively. Or,
2. FedEx chooses to spend the money instead of tying up valuable space in their own system.

Either way, I don't see how FedEx can be put up as a model of efficiency as they are either spending more than they need too, or are less efficient than the competition. Possibly both.

Red:
Note my tense correction. Let me know if it's incorrect.

I did indeed "miss" that as being your point, but then you didn't present it as you now have.

I have no direct experience with FedEx, as I have with UPS and USPS, that would allow me to understand their specific business processes, practices, and policies.

Blue:
As for whether FedEx or UPS is more or less efficient than the other, it's hard to say and be 100% accurate at the level of conversation we're having. I accept that anyone can make a judgment call, and that's exactly what business analysts do when examining the players in the transportation industry.

You are correct. My experience, however, is that UPS is the way to go, for what I ship/receive, and/or have knowledge of. Frankly, judging by delivery trucks I see alone, I don't know how FedEx is still in business. Ratio seems to be somewhere in the area of about 3 UPS to 1 FedEx. At least where I am....

 

[flacaltenn]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

The system was designed by your forefathers to facilitate slow change. Politics is a required part of being the POTUS. if you take out that check then you effectively have a dictatorship.

I'm not suggesting the POTUS circumvents the rules in any way.. Politically compromised solutions are almost always not inventive, not brilliant, not optimum.. Political solutions involving making both PARTIES happy more often than not are focused on BUYING support by constructing solutions with a big ole list of BRIBES so that the 2 parties from hell can both claim victory. Who loses? the people do.. It's spend more, make enough parallel agencies that each party gets to control one of them, and never really fix the problems..

A Chief Exec skilled in problem solving will find alternatives to that formula. Actually CRAFT workable programs, and sell them to the PEOPLE -- not to the 4 people that actually run the Congress. A portfolio of a poly sci degree or extensive political experience is a guaranteed lack of creative skillful ways to FIX anything.. It's an admission that you've produced shoddy ineffective results and are PROUD of being a "compromiser"..

You see that commercial running on TV about "The Settlers"?? Where they settle for 19th Century solutions and methods instead of signing up for Xfinity (or whatever they are selling)? That's what you get with "expert" politicians.