Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - 1694
In yesterday's "bonus" post (2nd post in the same day), I told you that I would reveal my strategy for catching Maine in this post. In the meantime, a funny thing has happened.
You'll recall that yesterday's percentages were 93% and 91.75% respectively. Well, this morning's percentages are 92.88% and 92.06%!
Yes, as fate would have it, Maine went backwards on the first day of the "competition"! How could that happen? Well, yesterday's percentage for Maine was based on having registered 2,818 carriers and having 212 unregistered. Today's percentage is based on Maine having registered 2,819 carriers and having 216 carriers unregistered.
In other words, Maine registered one carrier --- but their number of unregistered carriers went up by four!
Meanwhile, our numbers for yesterday and today were 19,539/1,757 and 19,558/1,694 respectively.
Notice that our unregistered carriers number went down by 63! This was a direct result of implementing our new strategy. And what is that strategy? Here it is: We're going to work really hard to reduce our unregistered carrier number.
"What???", you ask incredulously. "Yes, that's correct.", I say calmly and with just a hint of reassurance. You retort, somewhat imdignantly, "Tell me how that's different than what you're supposed to have been doing all along." "I will if you'll just calm down." I say soothingly. "But you'll have to wait until tomorrow."
"Happy Veteran's Day" to all of my fellow veterans. Thank you for putting your lives on the line to protect this great country of ours!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Reign In Maine Falls Mainly Due To My Insane Game!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - XXXX
OK, Maine, I'm coming after you. You probably don't know (or care), but I'm coming after you. You have held on to the top registration percentage long enough. It's time for the title to move out here to the Midwest.
Let's review: as of this morning (11/10), Maine is sitting right at 93% and I'm at 91.75%.
What, exactly, does this challenge entail? Let me put it to you this way. With 19,539 carriers registered, my unregistered population would have to be 1,470 - not 1,757 - to be at 93%. That's 287 less unregistered carriers than I have as of this morning. And that's about how much - NET - that I have to reduce my list by in order to be in the running! It's a tall order!
Can we do it? I don't know. But I've got a plan. Tune in tomorrow - or whenever I post again because tomorrow's a holiday - to find out what that plan is.
Unregistered Carriers on 11/11/2009 - XXXX
OK, Maine, I'm coming after you. You probably don't know (or care), but I'm coming after you. You have held on to the top registration percentage long enough. It's time for the title to move out here to the Midwest.
Let's review: as of this morning (11/10), Maine is sitting right at 93% and I'm at 91.75%.
What, exactly, does this challenge entail? Let me put it to you this way. With 19,539 carriers registered, my unregistered population would have to be 1,470 - not 1,757 - to be at 93%. That's 287 less unregistered carriers than I have as of this morning. And that's about how much - NET - that I have to reduce my list by in order to be in the running! It's a tall order!
Can we do it? I don't know. But I've got a plan. Tune in tomorrow - or whenever I post again because tomorrow's a holiday - to find out what that plan is.
How Much Is Your Next $100,000 (Of UCR Revenue) Worth To You?
Unregistered Carriers on 11/09/2009 - 1778
Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
You know you've been blogging a while when you can't remember if you've written about a topic or not. You know you're lazy if you don't feel like going back through all of your previous posts to find out. And, since the chances are good that not many people will read this blog anyway, you know that I'm just going to "live on the edge" and tell you what's on my mind - and, if it sounds familiar, I'll chalk it up as a "refresher course".
With that grandiose introduction, I'd like to talk to you (again?) about a topic that is near and dear to my heart:
How much is your next $100,000 (of UCR revenue) worth to you?
(Don't get hung up on $100,000 - the number could be $250,000, 500,000 or even $1,000,000.)
In the midst of all the hoopla about the under-collection of UCR revenue, I have asked quite a few people, "How much money would you (or your boss or your agency) spend if you knew that, as a result of spending that money, you would collect an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue?" Again, we could just as well be talking about an additional $200,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000 - you pick the number.
Quite honestly, the answers to this question have kind of shocked me... but not really. They fall into several categories - none of them seemingly very good from a UCR program standpoint.
1) "I don't understand the question." (This one troubles me a little!)
2) "I don't know - I'd have to think about it."
3) "I don't know - I'd have to ask my boss."
4) "$0. I can't spend any money at all - no budget appropriation for it."
5) "Is the $100,000 guaranteed?"
6) "Probably not more than $249. Above that, I have to go through 'hell and high water' procurement scrutiny.)
I understand every one of these answers - I just don't like the sound of them very much.
Contrast that question with this question:
"How much money did you spend this year to collect the amount of UCR revenue you collected?"
With a little thought, we can all probably take a shot at that question. In other words, we can calculate how much we have spent per $100,000 of revenue we've already generated ... it's that next $100,000 of revenue that gets tricky.
I could ask the question a different way - "Would you be willing to spend $15,000 every year to virtually guarantee an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue every year?"
From everything I've gathered anecdotally, the answer would probably be "No, thanks." I can then envision the person who answered the question walking off, mumbling, "Would I spend $15,000? Where am I going to get that kind of money? I'm a recipient state, for crying out loud!"
Unregistered Carriers on 11/10/2009 - 1757
You know you've been blogging a while when you can't remember if you've written about a topic or not. You know you're lazy if you don't feel like going back through all of your previous posts to find out. And, since the chances are good that not many people will read this blog anyway, you know that I'm just going to "live on the edge" and tell you what's on my mind - and, if it sounds familiar, I'll chalk it up as a "refresher course".
With that grandiose introduction, I'd like to talk to you (again?) about a topic that is near and dear to my heart:
How much is your next $100,000 (of UCR revenue) worth to you?
(Don't get hung up on $100,000 - the number could be $250,000, 500,000 or even $1,000,000.)
In the midst of all the hoopla about the under-collection of UCR revenue, I have asked quite a few people, "How much money would you (or your boss or your agency) spend if you knew that, as a result of spending that money, you would collect an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue?" Again, we could just as well be talking about an additional $200,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000 - you pick the number.
Quite honestly, the answers to this question have kind of shocked me... but not really. They fall into several categories - none of them seemingly very good from a UCR program standpoint.
1) "I don't understand the question." (This one troubles me a little!)
2) "I don't know - I'd have to think about it."
3) "I don't know - I'd have to ask my boss."
4) "$0. I can't spend any money at all - no budget appropriation for it."
5) "Is the $100,000 guaranteed?"
6) "Probably not more than $249. Above that, I have to go through 'hell and high water' procurement scrutiny.)
I understand every one of these answers - I just don't like the sound of them very much.
Contrast that question with this question:
"How much money did you spend this year to collect the amount of UCR revenue you collected?"
With a little thought, we can all probably take a shot at that question. In other words, we can calculate how much we have spent per $100,000 of revenue we've already generated ... it's that next $100,000 of revenue that gets tricky.
I could ask the question a different way - "Would you be willing to spend $15,000 every year to virtually guarantee an additional $100,000 in UCR revenue every year?"
From everything I've gathered anecdotally, the answer would probably be "No, thanks." I can then envision the person who answered the question walking off, mumbling, "Would I spend $15,000? Where am I going to get that kind of money? I'm a recipient state, for crying out loud!"
Monday, November 9, 2009
UCR Reconciliation - Wherefore Art Thou?
Unregistered Carriers on 11/06/2009 - 1762
Unregistered Carriers on 11/09/2009 - 1778
Today, I would like to put on my UCR Systems Committee Chairperson hat and point out what I perceive to be a weakness in the overall UCR registration / data exchange system. Please notice that I didn't say a "problem", but rather a "weakness".
Specifically, we have no viable way to reconcile the registration data that are (is?) flowing through our system. It's the kind of thing an auditor would look at and say, "How do you know for sure ...". In this case, the question would be, "How do you know for sure that the data is moving through the system and arriving where it's supposed to arrive accurately?" We're not saying that we KNOW there's a problem. We're just asking how we know that we DON'T have a problem? And the answer is, we don't know that.
Perhaps a financial analogy would be helpful. Any of us who manage sections where money is processed knows that at the end of a processing session, one needs to add up the transactions done, compare the payment instruments processed against the transactions processed and make sure the totals and the details of each match.
We don't have the same kind of reconciliation process with UCR data.
Data gets input and "shipped off", but we don't have any kind of "reconciliation report" to show us that the data traveled and landed appropriately. Admittedly, the data travels a somewhat complicated path. Ten States update both the Feds and Iteris ... on different schedules. The Feds (and Volpe) have their own internal schedule that involves not only MCMIS, but L&I, Safestat, SAFER, UCR and who knows what other systems. Eventually, the data stops traveling ... and hopefully lands where it's supposed to land.
When all is said and done, however, nowhere in the process can we say, "OK, I've got 'X' here and 'X' here. It balances! We're good!" And that strikes me as a weakness.
Unregistered Carriers on 11/09/2009 - 1778
Today, I would like to put on my UCR Systems Committee Chairperson hat and point out what I perceive to be a weakness in the overall UCR registration / data exchange system. Please notice that I didn't say a "problem", but rather a "weakness".
Specifically, we have no viable way to reconcile the registration data that are (is?) flowing through our system. It's the kind of thing an auditor would look at and say, "How do you know for sure ...". In this case, the question would be, "How do you know for sure that the data is moving through the system and arriving where it's supposed to arrive accurately?" We're not saying that we KNOW there's a problem. We're just asking how we know that we DON'T have a problem? And the answer is, we don't know that.
Perhaps a financial analogy would be helpful. Any of us who manage sections where money is processed knows that at the end of a processing session, one needs to add up the transactions done, compare the payment instruments processed against the transactions processed and make sure the totals and the details of each match.
We don't have the same kind of reconciliation process with UCR data.
Data gets input and "shipped off", but we don't have any kind of "reconciliation report" to show us that the data traveled and landed appropriately. Admittedly, the data travels a somewhat complicated path. Ten States update both the Feds and Iteris ... on different schedules. The Feds (and Volpe) have their own internal schedule that involves not only MCMIS, but L&I, Safestat, SAFER, UCR and who knows what other systems. Eventually, the data stops traveling ... and hopefully lands where it's supposed to land.
When all is said and done, however, nowhere in the process can we say, "OK, I've got 'X' here and 'X' here. It balances! We're good!" And that strikes me as a weakness.
Friday, November 6, 2009
It's Official - At Least For Today!!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/04/2009 - 1764
Unregistered Carriers on 11/06/2009 - 1762
This morning - according to the Iteris reports - we are 4 registrations ahead of our friends in California. We have registered 19,478 Illinois carriers while California has registered 19,474 California carriers.
On July 1, we were 2,053 registrations behind them.
Registering nearly 20,000 of our own carriers is probably a much bigger feat for us than it is for California because our pool of carriers is much smaller. In order for us to hit that kind of number, our registration percentage also has to be very high - which, at 91.71%, it is.
As I said to Scott Morris yesterday, there's a difference between focusing on something and just showing up. In fact, of all the "Best Practices", focus may be the most important "Best Practice" of all. Focus drives activity AND innovation - how can we get more out of what we're doing?
To those States who might say, "We must be busier than you are because we don't have time to focus on UCR", I would say, "I doubt it". Feel free to call my staff and ask them yourself. In fact, Kathy said to me yesterday, "I can't even imagine what our lives would be like if we were a Recipient State"! (I can - but I don't want to scare her unnecessarily.)
And now, having caught California, we just have one more stop - Maine. Not for the "lobstuh" - although that would be great - but for the highest UCR registration percentage. Can we overcome a 1.23% deficit? As I've written in other posts, I doubt that it's mathematically possible - especially given the time frame. But then, I didn't think we could catch California either!
Fasten your seat belt, Kath'!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/06/2009 - 1762
This morning - according to the Iteris reports - we are 4 registrations ahead of our friends in California. We have registered 19,478 Illinois carriers while California has registered 19,474 California carriers.
On July 1, we were 2,053 registrations behind them.
Registering nearly 20,000 of our own carriers is probably a much bigger feat for us than it is for California because our pool of carriers is much smaller. In order for us to hit that kind of number, our registration percentage also has to be very high - which, at 91.71%, it is.
As I said to Scott Morris yesterday, there's a difference between focusing on something and just showing up. In fact, of all the "Best Practices", focus may be the most important "Best Practice" of all. Focus drives activity AND innovation - how can we get more out of what we're doing?
To those States who might say, "We must be busier than you are because we don't have time to focus on UCR", I would say, "I doubt it". Feel free to call my staff and ask them yourself. In fact, Kathy said to me yesterday, "I can't even imagine what our lives would be like if we were a Recipient State"! (I can - but I don't want to scare her unnecessarily.)
And now, having caught California, we just have one more stop - Maine. Not for the "lobstuh" - although that would be great - but for the highest UCR registration percentage. Can we overcome a 1.23% deficit? As I've written in other posts, I doubt that it's mathematically possible - especially given the time frame. But then, I didn't think we could catch California either!
Fasten your seat belt, Kath'!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
UCR Is A Terrific Program!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/03/2009 - 1798
Unregistered Carriers on 11/04/2009 - 1764
I'm getting a little tired of everybody bashing UCR. I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating:
We have done a remarkable job implementing UCR.
We have never received a dime of funding for UCR implementation or administration!
We collate and distribute electronic enforcement information from ten different systems around the country in an extremely effective and timely manner.
We register more carriers than IRP or IFTA.
We have registered just under 75% of the assumed universe of carriers - or at least the assumed universe of carrier "records". This percentage was, at one time, cited by certain industry representatives in public meetings as the threshold number for "a good faith effort" by States, but has now apparently come to represent the States "not doing nearly enough".
I could go on ... but you get the point.
It doesn't hurt to look over our shoulders every once in a while to see how far we've come. And we're only going to get better!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/04/2009 - 1764
I'm getting a little tired of everybody bashing UCR. I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating:
We have done a remarkable job implementing UCR.
We have never received a dime of funding for UCR implementation or administration!
We collate and distribute electronic enforcement information from ten different systems around the country in an extremely effective and timely manner.
We register more carriers than IRP or IFTA.
We have registered just under 75% of the assumed universe of carriers - or at least the assumed universe of carrier "records". This percentage was, at one time, cited by certain industry representatives in public meetings as the threshold number for "a good faith effort" by States, but has now apparently come to represent the States "not doing nearly enough".
I could go on ... but you get the point.
It doesn't hurt to look over our shoulders every once in a while to see how far we've come. And we're only going to get better!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
What's Up With California and UCR?
Unregistered Carriers on 10/30/2009 - 1821
Unregistered Carriers on 11/03/2009 - 1798
I have been interested to read about California's "disenchantment" with the UCR program. I've been even more interested to read about their proposed solutions. But I've been the most interested - and I'm not trying to cast aspersions here - that the criticisms have come from a State that seems to be "part of the problem".
In pursuit of that last point:
As of this morning, California has registered 66.42% of their carriers during the fourteen months of 2009 UCR Registration.
If my recollection serves me correctly: 1) that's a below-average percentage for a UCR participating state, 2) it's only a couple of points higher than a couple of the non-participating states they criticize, and 3) it's 15-20% below many states that do IRP in the same agency as UCR.
In fact, according to the Feds, there are still nearly 10,000 (9,828 to be exact) "active interstate carriers that have had a crash, an inspection, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the last year" domiciled in California that have yet to complete 2009 UCR registration.
I know, I know, ..... it's probably 9,828 bad MCMIS records. But it's a heck of a lot more than any of the rest of us have. And it is, after all, one-third of the "alleged" motor carrier population in California.
In defense of California, they have collected revenues over and above their cap. They are, in fact, a Donor state. We don't have enough of those. But, in a state with 30,000 carriers, that's not exactly a colossal feat. And it certainly masks several more important issues.
Look ..... if we had a different law, different rules, and different definitions, UCR would, indeed, be a different program.
If California had their way, UCR would apparently look an awful lot more like IRP. But, if the Feds have their way (PRISM, mandatory DOT numbers, safety for license plates, etc.), IRP might start to take on more of a UCR look - except, of course, for that pesky 26K weight limit and that definition of "interstate carrier" and no paper credential and ... oh, heck with it!
Unregistered Carriers on 11/03/2009 - 1798
I have been interested to read about California's "disenchantment" with the UCR program. I've been even more interested to read about their proposed solutions. But I've been the most interested - and I'm not trying to cast aspersions here - that the criticisms have come from a State that seems to be "part of the problem".
In pursuit of that last point:
As of this morning, California has registered 66.42% of their carriers during the fourteen months of 2009 UCR Registration.
If my recollection serves me correctly: 1) that's a below-average percentage for a UCR participating state, 2) it's only a couple of points higher than a couple of the non-participating states they criticize, and 3) it's 15-20% below many states that do IRP in the same agency as UCR.
In fact, according to the Feds, there are still nearly 10,000 (9,828 to be exact) "active interstate carriers that have had a crash, an inspection, an MCS-150 update or a UCR registration in the last year" domiciled in California that have yet to complete 2009 UCR registration.
I know, I know, ..... it's probably 9,828 bad MCMIS records. But it's a heck of a lot more than any of the rest of us have. And it is, after all, one-third of the "alleged" motor carrier population in California.
In defense of California, they have collected revenues over and above their cap. They are, in fact, a Donor state. We don't have enough of those. But, in a state with 30,000 carriers, that's not exactly a colossal feat. And it certainly masks several more important issues.
Look ..... if we had a different law, different rules, and different definitions, UCR would, indeed, be a different program.
If California had their way, UCR would apparently look an awful lot more like IRP. But, if the Feds have their way (PRISM, mandatory DOT numbers, safety for license plates, etc.), IRP might start to take on more of a UCR look - except, of course, for that pesky 26K weight limit and that definition of "interstate carrier" and no paper credential and ... oh, heck with it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)