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:
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.
plodder wrote: » Excuse me, but I wasn't the one who said it would save 250,000 hours of work per annum.
ukoda wrote: » You divided the hours by the applications which is totally wrong. The 250,000 I believe and never said you said it.
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.
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.
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.
plodder wrote: » then I don't see it.
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.
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 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 ..
BoatMad wrote: » Plodder, why bother coming to this thread just to generate meaningless negativity
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??
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 !!)
plodder wrote: » Then please engage with the substance of my points and stop this 'conspiracy theory' nonsense.
plodder wrote: » @ukoda. I never said it can't be true. I said it seems unlikely so explain how could it be true
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.
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.
ukoda wrote: » College grant applications are disportionslly rural, as already pointed out to you. So no, two thirds won't be straightforward.
plodder wrote: » Do you have a reference to what the split is?
ukoda wrote: » Do you, you claimed its two thirds unique addresses, do you have a source for that?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
