may10 nowg report

8/8/2019 May10 NOWG Report

1/28

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


2/28


3/28

05/21/2010 3

2009 Ratings Chart

for

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

EXCEEDED

Exceeded performance requirement(s)

yProvided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded expectations

yPerformance was well above requirements

yDecisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations

MORE THAN

MET

Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)yProvided more than what was required to be successful

yPerformance was more than competent and reliable

yDecisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements and expectations

MET

Met performance requirement(s)

yMet requirements in order to be considered successful

yPerformance was competent and reliable

yDecisions and recommendations were within requirements and expectations

SOMETIMES MET

Sometimes met performance requirement (s)

yWas inconsistent in meeting performance requirements

yPerformance was sometimes competent and reliableyDecisions and recommendations were sometimes within requirements

NOT MET

Did not meet performance requirement(s).

yAdministrative t asks and objectives were not within requirements in order to be

considered successful

yPerformance was unreliable and commitments were not met

yDecisions and recommendations were inconsistent with requirements

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


4/28

05/21/2010 4

Summary

2009 PA Performance Report

The PAs annual performance assessment is based

upon:

2009 Performance Feedback Survey

Written comments and reports

Annual Operational Review

NOWG observations and interactions with the PA


5/28

05/21/2010 5

Summary

2009 PA Performance Report

The PAs rating for the 2009 performance year wasdetermined by the NOWG to be More than Met. Thisrating is defined below:

M RE

MET

et and often went be ond erfor an e re ire ent s

y Provided more than what was required to be successfuly Performance was more than competent and reliable

y Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded

requirements and expectations


6/28

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:

32

71 68

55 53 50

65

1925 26 23

17

2532

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PA Annual Performance ReviewVolume of Responses 2009

Industry &Other

Regulators


7/28

05/21/2010 7

Summary

2009 PA Performance ReportPooling 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


8/28

05/21/2010 8

Summary

2009 PA Performance ReportPooling Administration System (PAS) (Section C)

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


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


32 as Exceeded

31 as More than Met

27 as Met

5 as Sometimes Met


9/28

05/21/2010 9

Summary

2009 PA Performance ReportMiscellaneous Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E)

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


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 thefollowing aggregated response ratings:

34 as Exceeded

46 as More than Met

16 as Met

1 as Sometimes Met


10/28

05/21/2010 10

Summary

2009PA Performance Report

Following is a summary of written comments that were provided bysurvey 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 areresolved

Always more than willing to help and provide documentation for

different situations Demonstrates professionalism and customer focus

.


11/28

05/21/2010 11

Summary


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.


12/28

05/21/2010 12

Summary NOWG Observations


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.


13/28

05/21/2010 13

Summary - Suggestions

2009 PA Performance ReportThe 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.


14/28

05/21/2010 14

Summary

2009 NANPA Performance Report

The NANPAs annual performance assessment is

based upon:

2009 Performance Feedback Survey

Written comments and reports

Annual Operational Review

NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA


15/28

05/21/2010 15

Summary


NANPAs rating for the 2009 performance year was

determined by consensus of the NOWG to be More than

Met. This rating is defined below:

M

M

et and often went be ond erfor an e re ire ent s

y Provided more than what was required to be successfuly Performance was more than competent and reliabley Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded

requirements and expectations


16/28

05/21/2010 16

Summary

2009 NANPA Survey RespondentsThe 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:

68

26

140150

69

4736

15

3426

1914 1626 30 22 20 21 21 20

27 27

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

NANPA Annual Performance ReviewVolume of Responses 2009

Industry

Regulators


17/28

05/21/2010 17

Summary

2009 NANPA Performance ReportCO (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 respondentsprovided the following aggregated response ratings:

51 as Exceeded

27 as More than Met

14 as Met


18/28

05/21/2010 18

Summary

2009 NANPA Performance ReportNumbering 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


19/28

05/21/2010 19

Summary

2009 NANPA Performance ReportNANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E)

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


29 as Exceeded

35 as More than Met

11 as Met

NANPA Website (Section F)



15 as Exceeded

23 as More than Met

6 as Met

2 as Sometimes Met


20/28

05/21/2010 20

Summary

2009 NANPA Performance ReportOverall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G)



17 as Exceeded

24 as More than Met

5 as Met.


21/28

05/21/2010 21

Summary


The following is a summary of written comments that

were provided by survey respondents.

Significant praise for NANPA staff was a consistent themethroughout 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


22/28

05/21/2010 22

Summary - NOWG Observations

2009NANPA 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.

.


23/28

05/21/2010 23

Summary - NOWG Observations


The NANPA continued to effectively manage all aspects

of NPA relief activity in2009

.

Throughout 2009, the NANPA personnel continued to

consistently exhibit their professionalism and expertise

while performing NANPA duties.


24/28

05/21/2010 24

Summary - Suggestions

2009 NANPA Performance ReportThe NOWG recommends the following suggestions beimplemented for continued improvement:

Continue ongoing enhancements as necessary to NAS and the NANPAwebsite

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 performanceimprovements, and develop an additional document for tracking and

reporting performance activities at the monthly status meetings


25/28

05/21/2010 25

PA Change OrdersChange

Order

Number

Date

Filed Summary NOWG Status FCC Action

Scheduled

Implementation

Date

16 5/11/2010

Proposed Enhancements to

PAS

Currently under

review by the

NOWG

15 3/17/2010

INC Issue #670Remove

Attaching Part 2 forms from

CO Code

request (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)

NOWG

recommendation

to APPROVE to

FCC 1/28/2010

FCC approved

on 2/19/2010

Tentative

implementation date

of10/1/2010


26/28

05/21/2010 26

PA Change Orders(Continued)

Change

Order

Number

Date


Scheduled

Implementation

Date

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

Holder vs. LERG Assignee

NOWG

recommendation

to APPROVE toFCC 1/28/2010

FCC approved

on 2/19/2010

Tentative

implementation dateof10/1/2010

12 1/7/2010

Changes to Trouble Ticket

Reporting

NOWG

recommendation

to APPROVE to

FCC 1/17/2010

FCC approved

on 2/19/2010

No implementation

date since no

changes are being

made to PAS

11 1/27/2010

NOWG and Regulator-

Proposed Enhancement to

PAS

NOWG

recommendation

to APPROVE to

FCC 2/3/2010

FCC approved

on 2/19/2010

Tentative

implementation date

of10/1/2010


27/28

05/21/2010 27

NANPA Change Orders

Change

Order

Number

Date


Scheduled

Implementation

Date

18 3/13/2009

INC Issue 611: Augmenting

the NRUF Verification

Procedures

NOWG

recommendation

to APPROVE to

FCC 3/26/2009

FCC approved

on 2/19/2010

Implementation is

scheduled for Fall

2010 and will use

two NRUF cycles to

ensure data is

correct


28/28

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] orNatalie.McNamer@t-

Mobile.com (Othermeetings forthe NOWGmay bescheduledasneededbeyondwhathas been

identifiedinthislist)

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

may10 nowg report

Documents