To All- Rolf is on the right track. It was with the persistence of an Associate Dean and myself that the Guidelines and a former, institutional maintenance plan developed by Steinway were used to get a third, full-time position at Oberlin; and it wasn't long after the appearance of the third position that faculty and staff realized how necessary the third position was. Ken Sloane, Oberlin Conservatory ============================ --On Sun, Apr 2, 2000 11:31 AM -0400 "Rolf von Walthausen & Nancy Larson" <pianos@traverse.net> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC