Implications of Electronic Mail and Message Systems for the U.S. Postal Service Page: 104
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
104 . Implications of Electronic Mail and Message Systems for the U.S. Postal Service
Table A-4.-EMS Technology Assumptions and Diversion Parameters by Mail Content and Sender/Receiver Pair
Other non- Other non- Bills and
Content Corr Corr advertising Bills Advertising Advertising Cards Corr Corr Corr advertising statements
Generation Ii 100% 100 "10 700/0 100% 100 "/0 100 "/0 100 "/0 100 "/0 100% 100 "0 70 "/0o oo "/o
Generation Ill 100 "/0 100 "/0 70 "/0 100% 100 0 30% 300/o 100 0 100% 100 "/0 0 100"/0
Early electronic II 30% 1983 30 "10 1983 3001o 1983 30% 1983 30% 1983 30"/0 1983
Advanced II 20 "I0 1995 20 "I0 1995 20 "I0 1995
EDP and office II
automation III 30%11983 20 "10 1984 20 "10 1984 20 "10 1985 20 "10 1987
Home computer II _ 30% 1987 30% 1987
terminals III 20 /0 1987 41)lo 1987 40% 1987 @o0o 1987
teletext III 40% 1985 20 /0 1985
Inexpensive HC II
receiver III 20'10 1990
N = Nonhousehold
H = Household
(r = Initial rate of growth
t = Year of 5% diversion
Key to Entries: Generation II EMS
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Generation Ill EMS
Table A-5 shows the actual procedure used by
the computer program to obtain the overall diver-
sion results. The computer program applied an
underlying growth rate to each mainstream seg-
ment, and then calculated the portion of each seg-
ment diverted to EFT, Generation II EMS, and
Generation III EMS. These diversion estimates
were calculated using the logistic growth curve
(described in app. B) for each mainstream segment,
with the parameters P (penetration potential), a
(growth constant) and to (time of 5-percent penetra-
tion), as specified earlier in tables A-3, A-4, and
A-5. The diversion estimates for each mailstream
segment were then added together to give overall
estimates for residual conventional mail volume
and for the volumes of mail diverted to EFT, Gen-
eration 11 EMS, and Generation 111 EMS.
Diversion estimates were calculated for the
years 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000. As explained in
chapter 3, the results of the computer runs were
adjusted upward by 10 percent (multiplied by a
factor of 1.10) to compensate for the difference be-
tween the projected and actual growth rate in the
mainstream for the years 1977-81.
Table A-5.-Procedure Used by Computer Program
for Market Penetration Projections
1. Select the year, t, for which diversion estimates are to be
2. Compute a "UG" factor for the underlying growth in the
mainstream relative to 1977. For most runs the assump-
tion was 2 percent compounded growth. Hence the "UG"
factor is 1.02 raised to the power (t-1977).
3. Compute EFT penetration for each of the segments in
table A-2 which are penetrated by EFT. First compute
the penetration fraction f using the logistic substitution
formula in appendix B, and the values of a and t. from
table A-3. Then multiply the 1977 volume x the "UG"
factor x the penetration potential P (from table A-3) x f.
This yields the volume diverted to EFT in year t for each
4. Reduce the 1977 volumes for segments affected by EFT
by the amount of EFT diversion before computing EMS
5. Compute diversion to Generation Ill EMS for each mail-
stream segment affected by EMS just as in step 3 above
for EFT, except use the reduced 1977 volumes for EFT
impacted segments, and use a, to, and P for Generation
III from table A-4. The penetration potential P is con-
tained in the third row of table A-4 (marked "PENETRA-
TION"). The a and t. values for Generation Ill are in the
lower half of the cells in table A-4.
6. Compute diversion to Generation II EMS for each seg-
ment in the same manner as in step 5 above, using a and
t. from the upper half of each cell in table A-4. Then
reduce the computed Generation II volume by the com-
puted Generation Ill volume. If the Generation i volume
exceeds the Generation II volume, then Generation II
volume is zero.
7. Add results across mainstream segments for each class
of mail to get diversion totals by class of mail.
SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Implications of Electronic Mail and Message Systems for the U.S. Postal Service, report, August 1982; [Washington D.C.]. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc39480/m1/107/: accessed February 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.