1 / 26

NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG)

NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG). May 17, 2011 Tri-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA Gwen Zahn, Verizon Wireless. Contents. 2010 PA Performance Report 2010 NANPA Performance Report Outstanding PA Change Orders

kathy
Download Presentation

NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group(NOWG) May 17, 2011 Tri-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Natalie McNamer, T-Mobile USA Gwen Zahn, Verizon Wireless

  2. Contents • 2010 PA Performance Report • 2010 NANPA Performance Report • Outstanding PA Change Orders • NOWG Participating Companies • Meeting Schedule

  3. Summary2010 PA Survey Respondents The number of respondents to the 2010 PA Survey was slightly down for both service providers and state regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

  4. Summary 2010 PA Performance Report The PA’s annual performance assessment is based upon: • 2010 Performance Feedback Survey • Written comments and reports • Annual Operational Review • NOWG observations and interactions with the PA

  5. Summary2010 PA Performance Report The PA’s rating for the 2010 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More than Met. This rating is defined below:

  6. Summary2010 PA Performance Report Pooling Administrator (Section A) There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 110 as Exceeded • 71 as More than Met • 37 as Met • 1 as Sometimes Met Implementation Management (Section B)  There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 27 as Exceeded • 26 as More than Met • 14 as Met

  7. Summary2010 PA Performance Report Pooling Administration System (PAS) (Section C) • There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 87 as Exceeded • 89 as More than Met • 56 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: • 28 as Exceeded • 39 as More than Met • 18 as Met • 1 as Sometimes Met

  8. Summary2010 PA Performance Report Miscellaneous Pooling Administration (PA) Functions (Section E) • There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 99 as Exceeded • 100 as More than Met • 48 as Met • 3 as Sometimes 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: • 33 as Exceeded • 44 as More than Met • 9 as Met

  9. Summary2010 PA Performance Report 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: • Responds to questions quickly and courteously. • Always very pleasant to work with and extremely helpful. • Provides a high level of expertise and professionalism. • Informative and eager to assist. .

  10. Summary2010 PA Performance Report Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Notable comments pertained to: • PA Help Desk backup support • Training of the PAs to improve the accuracy of responses and to increase their understanding of the pooling administration process

  11. Summary – NOWG Observations2010 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.

  12. Summary - Suggestions2010 PA Performance Report The NOWG recommends that the PA focus on the following improvements: • Review internal training processes to ensure that consistency in understanding the processes and responding to service providers is communicated to the PA personnel. • Continue the proactive NPAC Scrub project to clean-up the over contaminated blocks in the PA inventory. • Ongoing review of the website to ensure accuracy and timeliness of data. • Work with the NOWG on review and evaluation of current reports submitted to the NOWG for monthly standing agenda calls. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

  13. Summary2010 NANPA Survey Respondents The number of respondents to the 2010 NANPA Survey was up for both service providers and state regulators. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:

  14. Summary 2010 NANPA Performance Report The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon: • 2010 Performance Feedback Survey • Written comments and reports • Annual Operational Review • NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA

  15. Summary2010 NANPA Performance Report NANPA’s rating for the 2010 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More than Met. This rating is defined below:

  16. Summary2010 NANPA Performance Report • CO (NXX) Administration (Section A) • There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 74 as Exceeded • 57 as More than Met • 15 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: • 64 as Exceeded • 60 as More than Met • 29 as Met

  17. Summary2010 NANPA Performance Report • NRUF (Section C)  • There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 71 as Exceeded • 49 as More than Met • 38 as Met • Other NANP Resources (Section D)  • There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 15 as Exceeded • 4 as More than Met • 4 as Met • 1 as Sometimes Met

  18. Summary2010 NANPA Performance Report • NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E)  • There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 44 as Exceeded • 39 as More than Met • 27 as Met • NANPA Website (Section F)  • There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 48 as Exceeded • 40 as More than Met • 25 as Met • 3 as Sometimes Met • 2 as Not Met

  19. Summary2010 NANPA Performance Report • Overall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G)  • There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 32 as Exceeded • 26 as More than Met • 12 as Met

  20. Summary2010 NANPA Performance Report 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: •  Competent, courteous, and customer-focused • Accurate, efficient, and helpful • Personable, professional, and conscientious

  21. Summary - NOWG Observations 2010 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.

  22. Summary- NOWG Observations 2010 NANPA Performance Report As in previous years, the 2010 survey results revealed a high level of client satisfaction with the continued perseverance, professionalism, and expertise exhibited by NANPA personnel when performing their NANPA duties. The NANPA continued to consistently and effectively demonstrate their expertise as the custodian of numbering resources in all areas in which they were involved.

  23. Summary - Suggestions2010 NANPA Performance Report The NOWG recommends the following suggestions be implemented for continued improvement: • Continue monitoring Change Order 18 issues relating to DDR and UMR. • Continue review of the NANPA website for improvements. • Consider implementing training videos, posted to the NANPA website, for NRUF, NAS, website and other training in lieu of live training. • Consider using live meeting for area code relief planning meetings. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

  24. Outstanding PA Change Orders

  25. NOWG Participating Companies • AT&T • CenturyLink • Cox Communications • EarthLink Business • Sprint Nextel • T-Mobile USA • Verizon Communications / Verizon Wireless • Windstream Communications • XO Communications

  26. NOWG Upcoming Meeting Schedule - 2011

More Related