150 plants and 400,000 employees

On November 5th, former Deputy Postmaster General Michael Coughlin suggested that the Postal Service in order to survive must have a much smaller footprint with possibly 150 plants and 400,000 employees. He made his remark in response to a question of Representative Danny Davis at the hearing of the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

While the hearing was about potential sources of new revenue, the question and the answer suggested that revenue generating options suggested by the panel will not generate the $3-5 billion in additional revenue that the Postal Service will need to be truly a viable enterprise. His answer further suggested that the Postal Service's current approach to cutting costs, while more effective than they have been in the past does not do enough to shrink the operating network down to either current levels of demand or even lower levels that are expected in the years to come.

Given former DPMG C0ughlin's experience, his response should be a considered a serious hypothesis about what a true redesign of the Postal Service would look like. His response raises an important question that opponents of shrinking the network will raise. Can the Postal Service maintain service levels if the network of processing plants shrinks to less than half of its current size?

To answer that question in the affirmative, and it can be answered that way, requires a major rethinking of the design of processing and transportation networks. If the Postal Service was to shrink to 150 processing facilities, two thinks would clearly change, the distance (and travel time) between processing facilities and delivery units would grow, and the time that mail is handled within each of the facilities must shrink.

For example, if the originating and potentially delivery facility moves from 10 miles to 90 miles from the delivery unit, then the time available for processing originating mail from open dump and cull to delivery point sequencing drops by 4 hours, assuming an average travel speed of 40 miles per hour. Fewer processing facilities means that facilities will be further apart, so critical dispatch times will likely be earlier to ensure on-time arrival.

Therefore the primary driver of 150 facility network would involve designing a facility that can handle turn-around times half of what they are today. Lower volume levels aid in cutting total sortation time. But new thinking about the use of automation and material handling systems must focus on reducing time as much as labor expenses. The 150 facility network would likely require larger facilities on average that can handle all of the sortation and material handling equipment that would be needed to cut handling time within each processing facility.

The 150 facility network would also require removing two key assumptions that drive all current network modeling. 1) Existing facilities must be used. The 150 facility network will likely have major processing facilities in locations further from population centers than current plants, with locations driven by access to the interstate highway system or major air facilities. It is possible that larger urban centers will retain some DPS sortation but only if it reduces total handling time. 2) The standard work shift within a plant is eight hours. The 150 facility network will likely have work for no more than 1 full time and 1 part time work shift. To the extent that DPS sortation remains close to delivery units, then that shift will likely also be part time. The proportion of full-time jobs could rise if divisions between crafts and all restrictions that prevent a person from having two different "jobs" within eight hours were eliminated.

The shift to a smaller network could have some significant management benefits. A smaller network is simpler to manage. While every node must operate as precisely as the finest Swiss watch, controlling variations from best practices would take less time to implement. Reducing time in plants requires a 6-Sigma, zero-defects, or whatever the current buzz-word is for eliminating errors that increase time and costs can be more quickly implemented in 150 facilities than in 350.

The shift to a network that is as much focused on reducing in-plant time reflects current mailer demand to both improve mail delivery reliability and reduce the time it takes to turn an idea into a delivery. Most importantly, the Postal Service has to be as reliable as e-mail when it promises a delivery date for all of its advertising customers to ensure that their direct mail campaign most effectively complements their broadcast, e-mail or Internet display advertising campaign.

There is one major drawback to implementing a 150 plant Postal Service, which is greater than the logistical and management challenge of shrinking the network; the elimination of 200,000 postal jobs at a rate between 20,000 and 40,000 per year in an implementation plan. Shrinking the network at that rate would create a far louder political outcry than even the first round of base closings. Shrinking the network at that rate would also create significant severance or early retirement costs and the Postal Service does not have the cash to pay them.

So this leads one back to Representative Davis's implied question: Can the Postal Service be saved? DPMG Coughlin's response illustrates that saving the Postal Service will require serious and unpleasant steps. The scale of the change that he suggests, as well as the limitations of revenue generating ideas of all stakeholders, should force Congress to think more boldly as they try to find a new business model and regulatory framework that can save the Postal Service.