CAUT Guidelines

[Ken Eschete]

To All:

Faced with the situation of having too many pianos and not enough technical
staff, there are two options:
1)  The technicians can try to do the best they can to keep all the pianos
going.  Like tuning an equal temperment, they shave a little maintenance
time off of each piano and hope that nothing really sticks out.
  2.) The other option is like tuning a Pythagorian temperment, where no
maintenance time is shaved off of the more important pianos, and the
effects of not having a large enough staff are concentrated into a section
of the inventory (the Wolf). Some of the pianos are really, really good,
and some are really, really, really bad, making it quite clear why a larger
staff is needed.

Demonstrate what IS NOT getting done due to a lack of staff so that
everyone can HEAR the difference.  Figure out how much NOT doing
maintenance work is costing the University.  (Example -- an old Steinway B
in good playing condition is worth say $20,000.00.  Once it is allowed to
fall into un-playable condition, it is only worth $7,000.00.  Not doing the
work will cost the University $13,000.00 in equity.  Doing the work with
in-house staff will cost them about $5,000.00 but that  will still raise
the net equity value of the piano by $8,000.00.  Then we can talk about
replacing that Steinway, but don't get me started.....

The Steinway and CAUT Guidelines are useful tools; but in the end, I think
it's the money that talks.  This is how I'm going to try it.  I'll let you
all know if it works for me.

Ken Eschete
Northwestern University
Evanston, Il




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


--
Kenneth P. Eschete
Northwestern University
k-eschete@nwu.edu