How is the Postal Service Managing Its Forklift and Tow Motor Fleet?
Filed under Mail Processing & Transportation
Tags: logistics, postal service, technology
The Postal Service uses forklifts and tow motors to move mail in its mail processing facilities. To improve efficiency and cut the costs associated with using this equipment, the U.S. Postal Service purchased a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)-based tracking system called the Powered Industrial Vehicle Management System (PIVMS).
Loading ...Features of the system that help productivity include weight sensing, real-time location of vehicles, two-way messaging, driver authentication and maintenance scheduling. Features that increase safety include impact accountability, facilitating Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance as well as speed and impact sensing.
The Postal Service has deployed the PIVMS in 114 facilities at a cost of more than $35 million to
• Reduce work hours used to transport mail and equipment throughout the plant.
• Reduce work hours needed to maintain the fleet of Powered Industrial Vehicles (PIVs).
• Eliminate unauthorized use of PIVs.
• Reduce injuries from unsafe operation of PIVs.
• Reduce damage to mail and equipment from unsafe operation of PIVs.
• Reduce the number of pieces of equipment needed to perform this work.
Pushing the Envelope is interested in hearing from those experienced in using the PIVMS. Has the PIVMS lived up to its expectations?
How do its benefits compare to its costs?
What do you think about PIVMS?
This topic is hosted by the OIG’s Network Processing directorate.
14 Responses to “How is the Postal Service Managing Its Forklift and Tow Motor Fleet?”
Leave a Reply
Hello and Welcome!
Social Media
Search
Change Font Size
What's Hot This Month
Recent Comments
- Supervisor on Pay for Performance
- gv34m0 on Pay for Performance
- Jack on Postal Service as a National Asset
- jrkakapastateradio on Pay for Performance
- sam on Workforce Flexibility – Would it Work for the Postal Service?
Recent Topics
- Pay for Performance
- Having Problems with Your Time and Attendance Records? The OIG Wants to Hear From You.
- Are They Listening to Me?
- Postal Service as a National Asset
- Safety First!
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I was a fork-lift operator (MEO) for many years before retiring recently. The PIVMS was a $35 mllion waste of money. The system was never used for the purpose it was designed for. Actually because of the many problems with the system it slowed down production. A total failure.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:25 am
another waste of good money did not work and has since not been used and has never worked when youre spending someone else mney you dont care…….
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:23 pm
In Buffalo,all these rfid systems are sitting idle on forklifts and jitneys.All are turned off with shattered screens and broken antenna’s.They were used exclusively for safety checklist (OSHA).Never were they used for two way communication or locating a piece of equipment.Total waste of time and money.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
This system is a total failure. We have waste4d more time and money on this system with no usefull return on the investment.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
HOW DO YOU VOTE ON THIS PIVMS SYSTEM
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I work at a NDC. The system was a waste of time and money. It is a glorified osha check list. Drivers can just hit yes for all the answers and not even look the forklift over or think about the questions. They can even drive around forever with out even doing the check list with the check list light flashing. The sensors do not work. you can record a lift just by side sifting or tilting the forks. This is because the hfx sensor that was installed in the hydraulic motor wire to record lift.But it also works any time the hydraulic motor turns on. We no longer have any support for this system unless you want to pay by the phone call. This system should be discontinued so we can stop wasting money.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Well, $35 mil is not really a high price in consideration of the hardware and software architecture I’m assuming you got. I have a suggestion though, based on these first comments, and my limited internal knowledge of your specific PIV’s application…..
RFID tags are certainly cheap, and can be integrated for any number of different applications. So you might try applying them to personnel or critical accountables? The barcode system is already utilized for inventory. So one method of identifying how useful
a piece of inventory, or personnel is to the enterprise, is to understand how dynamic it is. Or, if
it simply a static asset.
For example, since most electronic devices, like OBC’s are software dependent, surely this RFID system is linked to the diagnostic system in the PIV’s?
Maybe not?
Additionally, this assumes a manual override between these components exists (from what it sounds to me
based on Mr. Fann’s comment?) Perhaps not? Anyhow, based on the $35 mil price tag between 114 facilities
it’s not inconceivable? Software Defined RF Y/N?,
that is… (it means the software is scalable to different applications and acts as the controller)
Irregardless, the RF system is now in place, which likely was a great part of the original investment. Therefore, a useful application of this portion of the original campus system infrastructure, that can used for additional applications, should be considered.
Quite simply, the campus environment where these RF systems have been already installed, can likely serve the end user in other ways as well. While continuing to serve the highly important personnel/asset protection need, as originally intended.
Don’t hesitate
February 24th, 2010 at 9:17 am
PIVMS is a great tool that provides information that we were not able to easily get another way. That said, it still takes effort, attention, focus and someone assigned the responsibilities for it to make a difference. My guess is that because there is more work to do than time to get it done, that PIVMS often does not get much attention. Additionally, upper management is not putting an emphasis on using PIVMS for work hour reduction therefore it is not being used to its potential.
IMO, the cost of PIVMS is only a waste for the sites that do nothing with it. It is a great tool – use it. However, someone will need to be assigned responsibility to make it work.
March 1st, 2010 at 10:13 am
I used to work in a P&DC about three years ago, and I didn’t find this system to be saving any time and money for the postal service. The only good thing I noticed was the ease of assignment and accountability of these equipments to specific employees. Befor the system was utilized, it was hard to figure out who is assigned to an equipment or who is responsible for a building damage caused by one of these equipment. Speed control was another positive element of this system. If it was fully utilized with qualified individuals assigned full time, it would’ve been a great investment.
Another system for you to consider is the Surface Visibility System implemented a few years ago.
March 20th, 2010 at 2:41 am
It’s good to see the USPS taking the initiative and using technology to it’s advantage. It’s a shame that our government-run, taxpayer funded USPS has been forced to settle with nothing less than the best equipment and tools.
Now if you guys could just work on getting some better tracking for packages… sort of like FedEx or UPS… that would be amazing. Keep working on it. You’ll get there.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:02 am
The glorified Inplant support team at the Lexington Kentucky Plant sits in thier office without a clue of what the six tow motors and four fork lifts can or can not do in this plant. There is no clear and convincing mechanism to prove who actually is on each piece of equipment.
May 21st, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Thanks for the information, as the technology is increasing new and improved system will take place of old ones
July 15th, 2010 at 1:19 am
Fascinating! Thank you.
Brad Hollister
July 30th, 2010 at 9:03 am
thanks