No Wonder Im stuck in Stockholm

One of the highest bosses in our organisation was at the Gothenburg depot (largest in sweden)
and made some "notes" that he sent out to a few, just for us to read...dont know if Im suppose to laugh or cry..read it..This is the reason Im still stuck in this damn Capital city and cant go home to my doggeh!!! OMG!!!!

His notes as follows.....

Local dispatch operation
Following telecon on Thursday I noted the following:
o Girls will work hours to be agreed next week; but essentially covering peak loading workload times;
o Girls will make all post scheduled amendments associated with any loading changes;
o All customer post scheduled amendments will continue to be the responsibility of the SAC;
o Girls will ensure accurate copies of all BoLs are maintained and dispatched to Stockholm as required.
o Tina will travel to Gothenburg next week to ‘operationalise’ dispatch operation in Gothenburg; this will include RT and scheduling weekly review meetings.
o All load confirmations will continue in Stockholm; however, process checkpoints meetings will review when it is appropriate to transfer this to Gothenburg.

Customers’ collection contracts linked to vehicle and products
In GIB there is only one vehicle mapped per customer destination for more than one customer destination – ship-to
Automatic customer collection load matching, in GIB, is not possible if the vehicle is configured, in the TAS, for more than one customer destination – ship-to (how much of the collections’ GI backlog is this causing?)
Drivers use a key ‘fob’ to introduce the vehicle to the TAS, prior to loading; therefore, it is the keys ‘fobs’ that are ultimately linked to customers’ contracts in GSAP. One ‘fob’ one customer’s contract and ship-to.
Instances being reported of drivers ‘cooperating’ together, which involves them loading two vehicles for one customer contract destination – ship-to; this will cause two invoices to be generated: one for the correct customer and one for the customer to whom the incorrect vehicle is mapped to in the TAS & GIB.

Vopak loading
- Shell printers installed in the terminal drivers’ lobby: one dot matrix and one laser printer.
- Dot matrix printer not used since go-live: still has the ‘windows’ printer test page in its document tray.
- Dot matrix printer not working: paper available but not ste up correctly. I strongly suspect that the dot matrix printer has not been used since go-live. (We only load HFO at this terminal; loaded approximately 60 loads since go-live and the box of paper feeding the printer was still full) Following a call to the infrastructure team, an engineer is being sent to the terminal to fix the printers.
Drivers mostly keying in an order number into the VOPAK TAS – these numbers appear on the VOPAK end of day report.
- Pilkington, a major customer for CF, loaded from this terminal. I have raised this issue in an earlier but essentially we should transfer this customer to a collection process; the GSAP contract set up work is in progress with StBC, but we will also have to do work in GIB and the TAS.
- No BOL, as we know and understand them, are issued to the drivers; they receive a collection ticket after loading. This collection ticket has very basic information on it such as order number; ‘normal’ litres number; product … nothing bout temperature or density, as we would expect on a BoL.
Electronic end of day reports are emailed to Shell facilities’ terminal admin – Bjorn. These end of day reports are accruing on his desk, as he does not know what to do with them. Daniel is establishing for me if the shipments are being load confirmed – I expect not – which will mean that our most important CF customer is not being invoiced; but they are getting their fuel.

Excessive deliveries per shipment
Shipment 920000698 was brought to my attention because all the separate delivery order numbers could not fit into the space allocated on the Bulk Loading Instruction (BLI). Good reason for this: only space for eight (8) order numbers; this shipment had thirteen (13) separate deliveries to the shipment. I have asked Fraser to raise this issue at the OCT meeting next week; and I will chase down with StBC to establish what generic business is generating this level of multi-dropping and establish if we can shift from mainline to re-sellers.

Driver loading non-compliance – customer flushing
Following a discussion with a very helpful driver, it became clear that one reason for loading non-compliance is because of the following scenario:
Scheduled multi-drop delivery on one transportation unit – truck or trailer;
Mixture of automotive diesel and heating oil required on truck or trailer;
Driver will always deliver the heating oil first;
Driver will always load one hundred (100) litres less of heating oil than our plan;
Driver will always load one hundred (100) litres more of diesel than our plan;
Driver, after discharging all the heating oil into the customer’s tank, will then pump one hundred (100) litres of diesel into the same customer’s tank, which means he has flushed all the heating oil form his hose and meter and delivered planned quantity of fuel to the customer;
Driver will then move on to the next customer and deliver the planned quantity of diesel without any trace of heating oil dye in the fuel.
Summary: delta between planned and actual delivered would be within tolerance; delta between planned and actual loading - 100 litres for the heating oil; + 100 litres for the diesel.
Action: Establish business case for the following:
Transfer all current heating oil business to re-sellers; (DW)
Dedicate, for any business that cannot be transferred to re-sellers, vehicles for delivering heating oil only. (DW)

Very usefull days I can tell you all
// XXX