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
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
05/21/2010
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
2
2009 Ratings Chart
for
NANPA and PA Performance
Satisfaction Rating
EXCEEDED
MORE THAN
MET
MET
SOMETIMES MET
NOT MET
N/A
05/21/2010
Used when the NANPA and PA...
Exceeded performance requirement(s)
Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectations
Performance was well above requirements
Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations
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
Met performance requirement(s)
Met requirements in order to be considered successful
Performance was competent and reliable
Decisions and recommendations were within requirements and expectations
Sometimes met performance requirement (s)
Was inconsistent in meeting performance requirements
Performance was sometimes competent and reliable
Decisions and recommendations were sometimes within requirements
Did not meet performance requirement(s).
Administrative tasks and objectives were not within requirements in order to be
considered successful
Performance was unreliable and commitments were not met
Decisions and recommendations were inconsistent with requirements
Did not observe activity or does not apply to service provider/regulator
3
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
4
Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
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
05/21/2010
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
5
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:
PA Annual Performance Review
Volume of Responses 2009
80
71
68
70
65
55
60
53
50
50
40
30
20
32
19
25
26
32
23
25
Industry &
Other
Regulators
17
10
0
2003
05/21/2010
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
6
Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
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
7
Summary
2009 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:
• 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
8
Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
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
9
Summary
2009 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:
• 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
10
Summary
2009 PA Performance Report
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
11
Summary – NOWG Observations
2009 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
12
Summary - Suggestions
2009 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
13
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
14
Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
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
05/21/2010
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
15
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:
NANPA Annual Performance Review
Volume of Responses 2009
160
140
150
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Industry
69
68
47
26
16
14
26
30
22
20
Regulators
36
34
27
27
21 1521
20 26
19
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
05/21/2010
16
Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
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
17
Summary
2009 NANPA Performance Report
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
18
Summary
2009 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:
• 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
19
Summary
2009 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:
• 17 as Exceeded
• 24 as More than Met
• 5 as Met.
05/21/2010
20
Summary
2009 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:
• Very helpful, knowledgeable, and experienced
• Proactive, prompt, and efficient
• Courteous, professional, and diligent
05/21/2010
21
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
22
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
23
Summary - Suggestions
2009 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
24
PA Change Orders
Change
Order
Number
16
15
14
05/21/2010
Date
Filed
Summary
NOWG Status
5/11/2010
Proposed Enhancements to
PAS
Currently under
review by the
NOWG
3/17/2010
INC Issue #670– Remove
Attaching Part 2 forms from
CO Code
request (Part 1
NOWG
recommendation
to APPROVE to
FCC 4/5/2010
1/15/2010
INC Issue #656 - Update
TBPAG Expedite Process for
Thousands-Blocks (Section
8.6)
NOWG
recommendation
to APPROVE to
FCC 1/28/2010
FCC Action
Scheduled
Implementation
Date
FCC approved
on 2/19/2010
Tentative
implementation date
of 10/1/2010
25
PA Change Orders
(Continued)
Change
Order
Number
13
12
11
05/21/2010
Date
Filed
Summary
NOWG Status
FCC Action
INC Issue #604 - Code
Holder vs. LERG Assignee
NOWG
recommendation
to APPROVE to
FCC 1/28/2010
FCC approved
on 2/19/2010
FCC approved
on 2/19/2010
1/7/2010
Changes to Trouble Ticket
Reporting
NOWG
recommendation
to APPROVE to
FCC 1/17/2010
NOWG
recommendation
to APPROVE to
FCC 2/3/2010
FCC approved
on 2/19/2010
1/27/2010
NOWG and RegulatorProposed Enhancement to
PAS
1/14/2010
Scheduled
Implementation
Date
Tentative
implementation date
of 10/1/2010
No implementation
date since no
changes are being
made to PAS
Tentative
implementation date
of 10/1/2010
26
NANPA Change Orders
Change
Order
Number
18
05/21/2010
Date
Filed
3/13/2009
Summary
INC Issue 611: Augmenting
the NRUF Verification
Procedures
NOWG Status
NOWG
recommendation
to APPROVE to
FCC 3/26/2009
FCC Action
FCC approved
on 2/19/2010
Scheduled
Implementation
Date
Implementation is
scheduled for Fall
2010 and will use
two NRUF cycles to
ensure data is
correct
27
NOWG Meeting Schedule
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
Contact any of the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details
Karen.S.Riepenkroger@sprint.com or Laura.R.Dalton@Verizon.com or Natalie.McNamer@tMobile.com (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
05/21/2010
28