nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Eircode - its implemetation (merged)

beveragelady

I called An Post today to try to sort out a problem with deliveries. The customer service chap was very helpful and I think it all got sorted.
The thing is, I tried to give him my Eircode because I live at a vague rural address but he said that they're not using them because the system isn't set up.
Amazed!
It's bad enough that they're no good to users of satnavs or google maps, but this is just astonishing. Can anybody explain how this could have been launched to such fanfare when it's all but meaningless?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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??

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?

BoatMad

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

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 ..

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: »

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

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

This is pretty cool!

moyners

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

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.

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.

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: »

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: »

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 ...

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.

ukoda

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:

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 naive. You clearly don't know much about running a business and process improvement.

plodder

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:

GJG

BailMeOut wrote: »

250,000 hours a year? So SUSI savings over 10 years will pay for entire eircode system!

That's pretty stunning. Even if you take a full cost of employment at €50 per hour - modest by PS standards - that save the taxpayer €12.5m per year. It won't take anything like 10 years to make back the cost of Eircode, not even three years.

If the government had the drive to implement that sort of efficiency across the public sector, it gives you an idea just how big the benefit for the taxpayer.

plodder

BoatMad wrote: »

They might inadvertently end up releasing personal information contrary to their privacy policy.

which any company can do today with or without eircode , so what , it that regards compliance with data protection is essentially voluntary

BoatMad

plodder wrote: »

They might inadvertently end up releasing personal information contrary to their privacy policy.

Keep asking the same question and you're going to keep getting the same answer.

which any company can do today with or without eircode , so what , it that regards compliance with data protection is essentially voluntary

marmurr1916

plodder wrote: »

They might inadvertently end up releasing personal information contrary to their privacy policy.

Keep asking the same question and you're going to keep getting the same answer.

BailMeOut

ukoda wrote: »

Mentioned before, SUSI Grants system using eircode, estimate they'll save 250,000 staff hours a year now that the staff won't have to look up Google maps.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/student-grants-could-be-slashed-by-half-in-postcode-overhaul-34557703.html

250,000 hours a year? So SUSI savings over 10 years will pay for entire eircode system!

gctest50

plodder wrote: »

Originally Posted by marmurr1916
...

What's amusing is that now you're resorting to the 'Chinese won't understand it' gambit...

What would a Chinese business do if they had your Eircode?

They might inadvertently end up releasing personal information contrary to their privacy policy.

Keep asking the same question and you're going to keep getting the same answer.

Are you implying they would be inferior ?

Or are you trying to get another thread locked up for drifting

plodder

marmurr1916 wrote: »

...

What's amusing is that now you're resorting to the 'Chinese won't understand it' gambit...

What would a Chinese business do if they had your Eircode?

They might inadvertently end up releasing personal information contrary to their privacy policy.

Keep asking the same question and you're going to keep getting the same answer.

gctest50

HERE maps need to get to work on this :

Nekarsulm

clewbays wrote: »

Did he ask you to verify it or was he using a map to be sure of the exact location?

He had a map showing the boundries of his alloted area.
Each dwelling was shown with the eircode printed beside each house.
Quite like the Dept.Ag. mapping showing land parcel identifiers, just not in photo form.
He cross referenced my name as householder with the eircode. He also inquired about several houses in the immediate locality which are unoccupied and noted this.

ukoda

marmurr1916 wrote: »

What would a Chinese business do if they had your Eircode?

SOMETHING!! They could do something with it. You won't get a credible example out of plodder or anyone really (as even the data protection officer "struggles to think of a reviting example") of a privacy breach specfically from having eircode and only from having eircodes. But that's not the point, for eircode detractors, it's enough to make a vague claim designed to elicit fear of eircode

marmurr1916

plodder wrote: »

the question is will every website in China or Hong Kong, know that Eircodes should be treated differently and removed from such lists.

It's really not complicated a point, but it is amusing to observe the twisting and turning around it.

...

What's amusing is that now you're resorting to the 'Chinese won't understand it' gambit...

What would a Chinese business do if they had your Eircode?

clewbays

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Well I live in the countryside, with typical townland address. Our census form was not pre-populated with the eircode, he copied it from his own master list into our census form.

Did he ask you to verify it or was he using a map to be sure of the exact location?

Nekarsulm

clewbays wrote: »

I wonder whether non-unique addresses are pre-populated with an Eircode which would put CSO ahead of the game. They probably are if CSO are using geodirectory. Was any mention made in relation to the Eircode of where you work?

Well I live in the countryside, with typical townland address. Our census form was not pre-populated with the eircode, he copied it from his own master list into our census form.

He has 500 addresses to complete, which is probably a five mile by five mile square area.

ukoda

clewbays wrote: »

I wonder whether non-unique addresses are pre-populated with an Eircode which would put CSO ahead of the game. They probably are if CSO are using geodirectory. Was any mention made in relation to the Eircode of where you work?

Not mentioned. The word "eircode" does not appear anywhere on the form either. It only asks for your address, every section for an address has a 7 character line at the end, I assume for eircode, but it's not labelled