nanc report numbering oversight working group (nowg)

NANC Report

Numbering Oversight Working Group(NOWG)

May 21, 2010

Tri-Chairs:

Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications

Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA

Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel

05/21/2010 2

Contents• NANPA and PA 2009 Ratings Chart• PA 2009 Performance Report• NANPA 2009 Performance Report• PA Change Orders• NANPA Change Orders• NOWG Participating Companies• Meeting Schedule

05/21/2010 3

2009 Ratings Chartfor

NANPA and PA PerformanceSatisfaction Rating Used when the NANPA and PA...

EXCEEDEDExceeded performance requirement(s) Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectationsPerformance was well above requirements Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations

MORE THANMET

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)Provided more than what was required to be successfulPerformance was more than competent and reliable Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements and expectations

MET

Met performance requirement(s)Met requirements in order to be considered successfulPerformance was competent and reliableDecisions and recommendations were within requirements and expectations

SOMETIMES MET

Sometimes met performance requirement (s)Was inconsistent in meeting performance requirementsPerformance was sometimes competent and reliableDecisions and recommendations were sometimes within requirements

NOT MET

Did not meet performance requirement(s). Administrative tasks and objectives were not within requirements in order to be considered successfulPerformance was unreliable and commitments were not metDecisions and recommendations were inconsistent with requirements

N/A Did not observe activity or does not apply to service provider/regulator

05/21/2010 4

Summary 2009 PA Performance Report

The PA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:

• 2009 Performance Feedback Survey • Written comments and reports • Annual Operational Review • NOWG observations and interactions with the PA

05/21/2010 5


The PA’s rating for the 2009 performance year was determined by the NOWG to be More than Met. This rating is defined below:

MORE THAN MET

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s) Provided more than what was required to be successful Performance was more than competent and reliable

Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements and expectations

05/21/2010 6

Summary 2009 PA Survey Respondents

The number of respondents to the 2009 PA Survey increased from 2008 for the industry and regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

32

71 68

55 53 50

65

1925 26 23

1725

32

PA Annual Performance Review Volume of Responses 2009

Industry & Other

Regulators

05/21/2010 7


Pooling Administrator (Section A)There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

• 103 as Exceeded• 102 as More than Met• 41 as Met • 2 as Sometimes Met

Implementation Management (Section B) There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

• 13 as Exceeded• 10 as More than Met• 21 as Met

05/21/2010 8


Pooling Administration System (PAS) (Section C)

There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the

following aggregated response ratings: • 90 as Exceeded• 82 as More than Met• 80 as Met • 2 as Sometimes Met

PA Website (Section D)

There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the

following aggregated response ratings: • 32 as Exceeded• 31 as More than Met• 27 as Met • 5 as Sometimes Met

05/21/2010 9


Miscellaneous Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

• 85 as Exceeded• 92 as More than Met• 77 as Met • 6 as Sometimes Met• 1 as Not Met

Overall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section F)

There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

• 34 as Exceeded• 46 as More than Met• 16 as Met • 1 as Sometimes Met

05/21/2010 10


Following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents:

• Outstanding praise for the PA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey:• Provides prompt, courteous, and accurate responses to inquiries• Knowledgeable and supportive in providing expertise• Readily available and go out of their way to ensure issues are resolved• Always more than willing to help and provide documentation for

different situations• Demonstrates professionalism and customer focus

.

05/21/2010 11


Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Notable comments pertained to:

• Pool replenishment• Training new Pooling Administrators• Communication to end-users regarding implementation of

Change Orders• Suggested PAS enhancements

.

05/21/2010 12

Summary – NOWG Observations2009 PA Performance Report

The NOWG concluded that the written comments were not indicative of any consistent performance issues, and in many cases provided significant praise for individual PA staffers.

05/21/2010 13

Summary - Suggestions2009 PA Performance Report

The NOWG recommends that the PA focus on the following improvements:

• Continue to proactively manage rate center inventories to ensure resources are available when needed.

• Continue to consider process improvement suggestions provided by service providers and/or regulators in the survey comments.

• Continue the proactive NPAC Scrub project to clean-up the over contaminated blocks in the PA inventory.

• Continue customer focus.

05/21/2010 14

Summary 2009 NANPA Performance Report

The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon:

• 2009 Performance Feedback Survey • Written comments and reports • Annual Operational Review • NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA

05/21/2010 15


NANPA’s rating for the 2009 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More than Met. This rating is defined below:

MORE THAN MET

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s) Provided more than what was required to be successful Performance was more than competent and reliable

Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements and expectations

05/21/2010 16

Summary 2009 NANPA Survey Respondents

The number of respondents to the 2009 NANPA Survey was the same as 2008 for regulators, but was down from 2008 for service providers and others. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

68

26

140150

69

4736

15

3426 1914 16

26 3022 20 21 21 20 27 27

NANPA Annual Performance Review Volume of Responses 2009

Industry

Regulators

05/21/2010 17


CO (NXX) Administration (Section A)

There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following

aggregated response ratings: • 42 as Exceeded• 47 as More than Met• 9 as Met• 2 as Sometimes Met

NPA Relief Planning (Section B)

There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following

aggregated response ratings: • 51 as Exceeded• 27 as More than Met • 14 as Met

05/21/2010 18


Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) (Section C)

There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the

following aggregated response ratings: • 48 as Exceeded • 32 as More than Met• 15 as Met• 1 as Sometimes Met

Other NANP Resources (Section D)

There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following

aggregated response ratings: • 3 as Exceeded• 2 as More than Met• 2 as Met• 2 as Sometimes Met

05/21/2010 19


NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E)There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

• 29 as Exceeded• 35 as More than Met • 11 as Met

NANPA Website (Section F) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

• 15 as Exceeded • 23 as More than Met • 6 as Met• 2 as Sometimes Met

05/21/2010 20


Overall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G) There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings:

• 17 as Exceeded • 24 as More than Met • 5 as Met.

05/21/2010 21


The following is a summary of written comments that were

provided by survey respondents.

Significant praise for NANPA staff was a consistent theme

throughout the survey. In many cases, the comments provided

praise for individual staff members. The following recurring

adjectives were used by multiple respondents to describe their

experiences in working with the NANPA staff:

• Very helpful, knowledgeable, and experienced• Proactive, prompt, and efficient• Courteous, professional, and diligent

05/21/2010 22

Summary - NOWG Observations 2009 NANPA Performance Report

Due to the vast majority of positive comments received, the NOWG concluded that the written comments indicated a high level of satisfaction experienced by those who interacted with the NANPA.

.

05/21/2010 23

Summary - NOWG Observations 2009 NANPA Performance Report

• The NANPA continued to effectively manage all aspects of NPA relief activity in 2009.

• Throughout 2009, the NANPA personnel continued to consistently exhibit their professionalism and expertise while performing NANPA duties.

05/21/2010 24

Summary - Suggestions2009 NANPA Performance Report

The NOWG recommends the following suggestions be implemented for continued improvement:

• Continue ongoing enhancements as necessary to NAS and the NANPA website

• Conduct training via on-line web conferencing regarding website navigation, search functions and content

• Offer refresher training for NAS users as necessary• Utilize the PIP for identifying and tracking performance

improvements, and develop an additional document for tracking and reporting performance activities at the monthly status meetings

05/21/2010 25

PA Change OrdersChange Order

NumberDate Filed Summary

NOWG Status FCC Action

Scheduled Implementation

Date

16 5/11/2010Proposed Enhancements to

PAS

Currently under review by the

NOWG

15 3/17/2010

INC Issue #670– Remove Attaching Part 2 forms from

CO Coderequest (Part 1

NOWG recommendation to APPROVE to FCC 4/5/2010

14 1/15/2010

INC Issue #656 - Update TBPAG Expedite Process for Thousands-Blocks (Section

8.6)


FCC approved on 2/19/2010

Tentative implementation date

of 10/1/2010

05/21/2010 26

PA Change Orders(Continued)

Change Order




Date

13 1/14/2010INC Issue #604 - Code

Holder vs. LERG Assignee




of 10/1/2010

12 1/7/2010Changes to Trouble Ticket

Reporting



No implementation date since no

changes are being made to PAS

11 1/27/2010

NOWG and Regulator-Proposed Enhancement to

PAS




of 10/1/2010

05/21/2010 27

NANPA Change Orders

Change Order




Date

18 3/13/2009

INC Issue 611: Augmenting the NRUF Verification

Procedures



Implementation is scheduled for Fall 2010 and will use

two NRUF cycles to ensure data is

correct

05/21/2010 28

NOWG Meeting Schedule

Contact any of the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details [email protected] or [email protected] or

[email protected] (Other meetings for the NOWG may be scheduled as needed beyond what has been identified in this list)

NOWG meeting notes and documents are posted at nanc-chair.org

Month Activity

May 17 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1:30pm Eastern, 2 hrs

May 25 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm Eastern, 2 hrs

June 10 PA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 1pm Eastern, 2 hr

June 18 NANPA Standing Agenda Call with NOWG - Conference Call 2pm Eastern, 2 hrs

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

nanc report numbering oversight working group (nowg)

Documents