Eircode - its implemetation (merged)

GJG

plodder wrote: »

SUSI receives around 100,000 applications per year. So, does this mean they were spending two hours per application looking up google maps?

Must have shockin' slow broadband or something.... :eek:

It's certainly extraordinary. When grant applications were handled by the county councils, they costed it at between €70 and €470 per application to process, unbelievable money, and the huge variations indicate extreme inefficiency.

That said, Eircode resolves to a lat/long, and simple scripts are available to calculate the driving distance on Google Maps. A simple step would be to require anyone anywhere in the PS submitting a travel claim to include the Eircode of each location they go to, in order. Vast amounts of time saved, errors avoided and fraud deterred.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

Considering the amount of rural people applying for grants I'd say a considerable amount of time was spent on non unique addressees following up, put it into google maps and how do you know what house it is? And how far away is it from the college? I better ring them and ask because it's not clear, How many phone calls per application to get to speak to someone who can actually provide an accurate location of the house? Do they describe the site while the SUSI worker scrolls around Google maps trying to find it?

Now it's, pop eircode in, job done.

To take such a simplistic approach and divide hours saved per application is naivive. You clearly don't know much about running a business and process improvement.

Excuse me, but I wasn't the one who said it would save 250,000 hours of work per annum. That was your good self repeating the claim in that article ...

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Excuse me, but I wasn't the one who said it would save 250,000 hours of work per annum.

You divided the hours by the applications which is totally wrong. The 250,000 I believe and never said you said it.

Do you get what I'm saying? SUSI said they save 250,000 hours per year. That's a creditable figure.

You come along and do some maths and make the claim they spent 2 hours googling per application. And made a smart remark about broadband speed.

My response is that they could EASILY save 250,000 hours per year of you were wise enough to know the impact of not having unique addresses would have on them. Your calculation ignores all the follow up work and processes they can now get rid of. So you're being too simplistic.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

You divided the hours by the applications which is totally wrong. The 250,000 I believe and never said you said it.

How is it totally wrong? This is what the article says:

The agency currently determines whether a student is entitled to an adjacent or non-adjacent rate by using Google Maps to measure the shortest distance from home to college, not using toll roads.

The change will mean that Susi will save up to 250,000 staff hours a year checking Google Maps for applications.

This year, it processed more than 108,000 applications.

If the above is correct, they are spending nearly two and a half hours per application looking up google maps on average.

Is it not more likely that it is not correct and more likely completely wrong? They are more than likely spending 2.5 hours on the entire processing of an application on average, and using Eircode will improve that time, to some unknown extent.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

How is it totally wrong? This is what the article says:

If the above is correct, they are spending nearly two and a half hours per application looking up google maps on average.

Is it not more likely that it is not correct and more likely completely wrong? They are more than likely spending 2.5 hours on the entire processing of an application, and using Eircode will improve that time, to some unknown extent.

As per my edited response above.

It's obviously not per application, as some are extremely straight forward. Others require follow up, processes to support that, people to manage it etc. You are going on the incorrect assumption that Google maps could resolve every address on its own and ignoring the fact it could take a person days to confirm it with phone calls, call backs, voicemails, letters, emails and all the processes and man power needed to manage it etc.

GJG

plodder wrote: »

How is it totally wrong? This is what the article says:

If the above is correct, they are spending nearly two and a half hours per application looking up google maps on average.

Is it not more likely that it is not correct and more likely completely wrong? They are more than likely spending 2.5 hours on the entire processing of an application, and using Eircode will improve that time, to some unknown extent.

I think that the word you are missing is average. This process must be done for every application. Without Eircode, 40 per cent of the addresses are non-unique - more, students are disproportionately rural - and the scope for generating appeals, correspondence and other disputes is significant.

When the councils were doing it, as I said, they costed it at up to €470 per application. Using the €50 per hour from above, that would mean up to nine hours processing per application. I think until you can show some evidence to the contrary, it's not reasonable to say that sourced facts are untrue.

moyners

Any latest rumours on Google implementation? - BoatMad I'm looking at you!

ukoda

https://twitter.com/autoaddress/status/715960449620160512


This is pretty cool!

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

As per my edited response above.

It's obviously not per application, as some are extremely straight forward. Others require follow up, processes to support that, people to manage it etc. You are going on the incorrect assumption that Google maps could resolve every address on its own and ignoring the fact it could take a person days to confirm it with phone calls, call backs, voicemails, letters, emails and all the processes and man power needed to manage it etc.

They claim that using Eircode will save up to 250,000 hours. Of course 'up to' is a weasely phrase that renders the claim meaningless. But, let's stick with it for now.

250,000 hours divided by 108,000 applications is over two hours per application on average. That is just simple arithmetic. Please explain to me exactly how using Eircode would save two hours of work on average. Unless they work by doing one application from start to finish and sit there waiting for people to call them back, without processing other applications in parallel, then I don't see it.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

then I don't see it.

I've tried to explain it to you in about 3 different posts, and so has another poster. I'm afraid if you dont get it by now, you're not going to.

It's basic business casing and because you can't get your head around it you claim they must be lying. The rest of country can see it. (As no one else has challenged the claim) it's not my responsibility to sit you down and explain it to you in terms you can understand.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

I've tried to explain it to you in about 3 different posts, and so has another poster. I'm afraid if you dont get it by now, you're not going to.

It's basic business casing and because you can't get your head around it you claim they must be lying.

Questioning something is not the same as an accusation of lying.

The rest of country can see it. (As no one else has challenged the claim) it's not my responsibility to sit you down and explain it to you in terms you can understand.

Fair enough, I suppose then if Eircode said today was Wednesday, it would have to be right, if no one else challenged the claim ..

BoatMad

Plodder, why bother coming to this thread just to generate meaningless negativity

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Fair enough, I suppose then if Eircode said today was Wednesday, it would have to be right, if no one else challenged the claim ..

Well eircode said nothing. It was SUSI who provided the figure of cost/hour savings.

you think it can't be true? If that's the case then you are accusing SUSI of providing false information?

plodder

BoatMad wrote: »

Plodder, why bother coming to this thread just to generate meaningless negativity

It's not meaningless negativity. But, if you think it is, then why are you here? This is a discussion site, where people are entitled to comment. Get over yourself.

@ukoda. I never said it can't be true. I said it seems unlikely so explain how could it be true

Do you folks seriously believe that this thread should just be a forum for Eircode fans, and nobody should be allowed to question anything??

BoatMad

plodder wrote: »

It's not meaningless negativity. But, if you think it is, then why are you here? This is a discussion site, where people are entitled to comment. Get over yourself.

@ukoda. I never said it can't be true. I said it seems unlikely so explain how could it be true

Do you folks seriously believe that this thread should just be a forum for Eircode fans, and nobody should be allowed to question anything??

Plodder, rather then advancing conspiracy theories or making up edge cases, why not advance meaningful Eircode issues, if there are any rather then simply trawling to fabricate obscure hypothetical issues.

Ive no problem with reasoned debate, I understand the technicals of Eircode implementation, I can quite happily debates the issues of Geodirectories for example ( mind you its numbingly boring stuff !!)

plodder

BoatMad wrote: »

Plodder, rather then advancing conspiracy theories or making up edge cases, why not advance meaningful Eircode issues, if there are any rather then simply trawling to fabricate obscure hypothetical issues.

Ive no problem with reasoned debate, I understand the technicals of Eircode implementation, I can quite happily debates the issues of Geodirectories for example ( mind you its numbingly boring stuff !!)

Then please engage with the substance of my points and stop this 'conspiracy theory' nonsense.

BoatMad

plodder wrote: »

Then please engage with the substance of my points and stop this 'conspiracy theory' nonsense.

the data protection issue are a non starter, anything that can be realised today , remains the same when using an Eircode.

thats not an eircode specific fault

your issues with the SUSI comments , parallel other " conspiracy " theorists in that when prevented with information you disagree with , it must be a lie or fabricated or biased, the truth bring much more mundane, its just an honest statement

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

@ukoda. I never said it can't be true. I said it seems unlikely so explain how could it be true

I've tried, as have others

Some applications would be straight forward

Others would require a huge amount of follow up work to confirm the properties location. The man power to do this, and the man power to manage the processes needed for this would be a considerable drain on resources.

This is only only other way I think of explaining it to you:

An application comes in, it's address is unique, it's processed and it's done in X amount of time.

An application comes in, it's non unique, I try google it, I can't resolve it, I make a phone call, no answer, I schedule a call back, I call again, I reach someone who can't help me, I schedule another call back, no answer, I write a letter asking them to call me, they don't, I call again, I leave a voice message, I go on annual leave, I pass the work to someone else to follow up, they call the applicant again, they get to speak to someone, it's a long call as we try to pin point the house on a map. All of this follow up work requires resources and processes and someone to manage it. Multiply this by 10's of thousands of applications, some will take even more time than this example.

Now introduce eircode. All that extra work is gone. Take a moment to think about the impacts in some real detail. Don't just divide 2 numbers and declare it to be false because you don't understand the impact.

That example above could take 5 hours to fully fix over the course of a week. If half the applications (50k) were like that, then 5 X 50,000 =????

And that's not including the managers time to make sure the follow up happens, dispute resolution, cost of calls/letters, and a wide variety of other issues.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

I've tried, as have others

Some applications would be straight forward

Others would require a huge amount of follow up work to confirm the properties location. The man power to do this, and the man power to manage the processes needed for this would be a considerable drain on resources.

This is only only other way I think of explaining it to you:

An application comes in, it's address is unique, it's processed and it's done in X amount of time.

An application comes in, it's non unique, I try google it, I can't resolve it, I make a phone call, no answer, I schedule a call back, I call again, I reach someone who can't help me, I schedule another call back, no answer, I write a letter asking them to call me, they don't, I call again, I leave a voice message, I go on annual leave, I pass the work to someone else to follow up, they call the applicant again, they get to speak to someone, it's a long call as we try to pin point the house on a map. All of this follow up work requires resources and processes and someone to manage it. Multiply this by 10's of thousands of applications, some will take even more time than this example.

Now introduce eircode. All that extra work is gone. Take a moment to think about the impacts in some real detail. Don't just divide 2 numbers and declare it to be false because you don't understand the impact.

Two points. What's going to happen when someone provides the right address but the wrong eircode, or no eircode at all? it's naive to think that all of the above work will just disappear by using eircode.

I've already said that it will definitely improve efficiency, but two hours on average seems extraordinary (and I'm not the only person to say that). Just to explain the relevance of averages here. Nearly two thirds of applications will come from unique addresses, which can be resolved instantaneously without any need for Eircode. So, Eircode only improves productivity in the other third. So, this means that the productivity improvement being attributed to Eircode is actually several hours per application, because the unique cases will be resolved immediately.

Now, if this turns out to be true, then that is wonderful and we will see annual expenditure by SUSI drop by at least 10 million (going on GJG's figures). We probably should send some consultants over there though to see what other efficiencies they can achieve .....

But, I make no apology for remaining sceptical.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Two points. What's going to happen when someone provides the right address but the wrong eircode, or no eircode at all? it's naive to think that all of the above work will just disappear by using eircode.

I've already said that it will definitely improve efficiency, but two hours on average seems extraordinary (and I'm not the only person to say that). Just to explain the relevance of averages here. Nearly two thirds of applications will come from unique addresses, which can be resolved instantaneously without any need for Eircode. So, Eircode only improves productivity in the other third. So, this means that the productivity improvement being attributed to Eircode is actually several hours per application, because the unique cases will be resolved immediately.

Now, if this turns out to be true, then that is wonderful and we will see annual expenditure by SUSI drop by at least 10 million (going on GJG's figures). We probably should send some consultants over there though to see what other efficiencies they can achieve .....

But, I make no apology for remaining sceptical.

College grant applications are disportionslly rural, as already pointed out to you. So no, two thirds won't be straightforward.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

College grant applications are disportionslly rural, as already pointed out to you. So no, two thirds won't be straightforward.

Do you have a reference to what the split is?

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Do you have a reference to what the split is?

Do you, you claimed its two thirds unique addresses, do you have a source for that?

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

Do you, you claimed its two thirds unique addresses, do you have a source for that?

It's ok to just say no, I don't have it. I'm not disbelieving you.

The two thirds/one third thing is the rough split of unique vs non-unique addresses across the country. So, if there wasn't a bias in applications towards rural areas, then that is what the split would be for college grant applications.

byrnefm

I've a colleague at work whose house was built several years ago but has no Eircode as there is no red dot on his house on the Eircode Finder page. He lives in the countryside.

Eircode said to contact An Post but he's really not sure who there he should get in contact with. Any ideas? He would actually use it if he had it!

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we stick to the topic and not be bickering.

SUSI are using it (that is implentation - so on topic) and say they are saving a lot of man-hours - OK. Enough said.

oscarBravo

byrnefm wrote: »

I've a colleague at work whose house was built several years ago but has no Eircode as there is no red dot on his house on the Eircode Finder page. He lives in the countryside.

Eircode said to contact An Post but he's really not sure who there he should get in contact with. Any ideas? He would actually use it if he had it!

My dad had no Eircode when he moved into his house (like your colleague, no red dot). He contacted Capita, explained where he was, and they gave him his Eircode over the phone.

I'll check with him who he spoke to.

eta: I just checked the map, and his house now has a red dot.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

My dad had no Eircode when he moved into his house (like your colleague, no red dot). He contacted Capita, explained where he was, and they gave him his Eircode over the phone.

I'll check with him who he spoke to.

eta: I just checked the map, and his house now has a red dot.

OK, seems it was done by email. He sent them his GPS location and a set of directions to his house (I think through the contact form on the website) and they sent him back the Eircode.

byrnefm

Thanks OscarBravo! I'll pass your information on to him.

marmurr1916

plodder wrote: »

It's ok to just say no, I don't have it. I'm not disbelieving you.

The two thirds/one third thing is the rough split of unique vs non-unique addresses across the country. So, if there wasn't a bias in applications towards rural areas, then that is what the split would be for college grant applications.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/students-from-dublin-least-likely-to-get-third-level-grants-1.2320183

http://www.hea.ie/news/review-student-grant-holders

Analysis of student grant applications based on the applications from the former Dublin postal districts and Co. Dublin here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/three-districts-receive-40-of-student-grants-in-dublin-1.2324887

The mandatory use of Eircodes for grant applications will enable much quicker sorting of data into small areas or other suitable geographical areas.

GJG

plodder wrote: »

What's going to happen when someone provides the right address but the wrong eircode, or no eircode at all? it's naive to think that all of the above work will just disappear by using eircode.

Firstly, if a student inputs their Eircode into an application form, the system can then populate their address automatically. If an invalid Eircode is input, the system will recognise it as such and not allow the application to proceed until it is corrected.

In the unlikely event that the student mistakenly inputs a different but real Eircode, the address populated will be starkly different from their own, and allow a correction. That alone is likely to save significant staff time, otherwise wasted on investigating and correcting errors.

plodder wrote: »

Nearly two thirds of applications will come from unique addresses, which can be resolved instantaneously without any need for Eircode. So, Eircode only improves productivity in the other third.

That's nonsense. Students grants are given in bands, according to distance from their college. Even with unique addresses, SUSI staff had to type their address and the college into Google maps, allow it to work out the route and distance, calculate the appropriate band and input that band into the SUSI database, with opportunities for error at each step.

Now, when the student enters their Eircode at application, the database is populated with the band automatically, with no room for miskeying or human error. Either benefit, before you start talking about non-unique addresses, is more than enough to justify this deployment.

If you are sceptical about the workload of each application, how many hours, at a rough guess, would you say it took a council that reported a processing cost of €470 per application?