CAUT Guidelines

[Kenneth Sloane]

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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>