CAUT Guidelines

[Rolf von Walthausen & Nancy Larson]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 Donald R McKechnie <dmckech@ithaca.edu> wrote:

>I have some thoughts that might get the ball rolling on the formula issue. One
>of the criticisms' administrators will have is the Base component. No matter
>how well the argument is made on having 60 as the Base, they will see that as
>unrealistic. One solution would be to change the base number. On a computer
>database, using the formula, one can easily change to whatever Base you want.
>Going up to 100 is pushing the limit in my opinion. I have done this with the
>inventory here at IC. The results show 4 technicians at Base 60 and 2 at
>Base100. What about the remaining variables in the formula? Are they good or
>in need of change?

I have been using the Guidelines extensively (and successfully) with a
number of institutions since their adoption 10 years ago, and would not
want to see us back away from the recommended ratios.  I actually find them
quite realistic, functioning at the very least as attention-grabbing
starting points that can be used to guide admistrators towards applying the
Workoad Formula to their own specific situation.  What I like about the
recommended ratios is that they represent the ideal.  By going through the
process of applying the workload formula, both administrators and
technicians can move towards an understanding of the compromises that need
to be made regarding expectations for a given amount of allocated time and
resources.  Staffing levels at _greater than_ the recommended ratio of
technicians to pianos will result in a less-than-ideal maintenance program,
but at least a standard has been established and compromises understood.


The interesting thing about the recently-created document published by
Steinway (referred to by Richard West in a previous post) is that if one
applies their 'formula' to a given inventory of instruments, the results
are amazingly similar to the recommended ratios found in the PTG
Guidelines.  I find the Steinway "Guidelines for Institutional Piano
Service" affirm the basic relevancy of the PTG "Guidelines for Effective
Institutional Piano Maintenance", and therefore can be used as supporting
documentation.

>In my quest to have an assistant technician hired here at IC, I have used the
>Guidelines as part of my justification. No success so far but I believe my
>full argument does not get in the hands of the powers that be.

I know it has been said before but persistence over the long haul seems to
be the key to success with using the Guidelines.  Cultivating supporters
among faculty and staff and finding/promoting the idea to the right 'powers
that be' is crucial.  It is often a multi-year process that consists of
maintaining constant dialogue with students, faculty, staff, administration
and board of trustees, and setting smaller mid-point goals along the way.

>Is it possible to add some sort of generic template to the
>Guidelines that will bolster the effectiveness of the document? Any ideas
>welcome.

Ken Eschete's idea of using charts and graphs sounds really good.  Perhaps
something along these lines could be incorporated into an appendix or
supplement without having to publish an entirely new document?

Looking forward to hearing more ideas.

Rolf von Walthausen
Interlochen Center for the Arts