1. ® MTAC WG #135 Transportation Management Systems (TMS) Combined Data Limitations November 18, 2010

2. ® Leadership  Industry Sponsors ● Debbie Cooper ● Ernie Rojas  USPS Sponsors ● Tom Day ● Pritha Mehra  Work Group Leaders ● Industry: Dan O’Brien (FDR) ● USPS: Diane Smith

3. ® Issues  Full Service requires electronic documentation showing data linkage between trays and containers Transportation Management Systems are not capable of tracking trays to create containers and supporting electronic documentation  Transportation Management Systems are not designed to network with each other to support the creation of containers across multiple TMS’  Transportation Management Systems output file format is not fully compatible with electronic documentation requirements

4. ® Objectives  Determine potential updates to Transportation Management Systems that will optimize the participating First Class Mailers’ ability to leverage the use of TMS to comply with Full Service Requirements  Enhance overall data collection capabilities to the benefit of both the industry and the Postal Service

5. ® Solutions  Full Service requires electronic documentation showing data linkage between trays and containers Transportation Management Systems are not capable of tracking trays to create containers and supporting electronic documentation  Assumptions  All TMS’ have a configuration editor that is customizable for aspects such as tag printing or suppression and sortation, if available  All TMS’ have a datalog file as the main data output  Action  Modify the Configuration Editor to allow additional fields  Configuration Editor already allows input by ZIP code  Add field for CSA Separation Number  Add field to set maximum container load

6. ® Solutions  Full Service requires electronic documentation showing data linkage between trays and containers Transportation Management Systems are not capable of tracking trays to create containers and supporting electronic documentation  Each time a tray is scanned, the Configuration Editor is queried for the appropriate CSA Separation, the “tray counter” module is initiated, and the appropriate IMCb is appended to the datalog file entry for that tray  Once a container meets the maximum container load, the container is closed out, and an IMCb is generated and printed  Manual closeout also available if containers aren’t full by cutoff time

7. ® Solutions  Transportation Management Systems are not designed to network with each other to support the creation of containers across multiple TMS’  Assumption  TMS’ already modified to meet data linkage requirements  Two Options  Activate one of the TMS’ to act as the host for all TMS’  Purchase a separate computer to serve as the host for all TMS’ (recommended)

8. ® Solutions  Each system will still maintain its own datalog file  Host computer will also have a consolidated datalog file  Configuration Editor on host computer will serve as Configuration Editor for all TMS’ connected to it  Reduces potential for errors due to variations across Configuration Editors  TMS’ must be able to be networked across vendor platforms and system types (Automated, Semi-Automated, Desktop)  Transportation Management Systems are not designed to network with each other to support the creation of containers across multiple TMS’

9. ® Solutions  Transportation Management Systems output file format is not fully compatible with electronic documentation requirements  TMS’ will still output Datalog files  MTAC WG 135 leadership meeting with USPS this week to determine format that best meets Full Service electronic documentation requirements  Format will be communicated to vendors through inclusion in the Transportation Management system requirements

10. ® Other Accomplishments  USPS Engineering agreed to accommodate Mailer request for Mailer-specified field on the D&R tag  Mailers can use field to assist with separations, hold-outs, or other applications, as they choose  Field will be three digit, alpha-numeric, human readable only  Accomplished by using a longer length D&R Tag label stock  Not required; Mailers can continue to use existing D&R Tag label stock  Details from USPS Engineering are expected in December 2010, and will be communicated to Workgroup distribution list

11. ® Going Forward  Workgroup 135 status is “Complete”  Vendors will be able to request new requirements in the coming weeks  A message will be sent to the Workgroup distribution list with specific details  Further details on Mailer-Specified field on extended D&R Tag labels will be provided next month Thank you for your participation