Guidelines

[Bdshull@aol.com]

Don, Ken and List:

The Guidelines recommendation of 60 pianos/technician should be made in the 
context of the use of the formula.  Wisdom was used in the compromise 
recommendation of 60 pianos/fulltime technician.  It is an informed but 
arbitrary and conservative recommendation.  In most cases it is likely to 
result in work left undone.  The formula numbers will tell the truth about a 
specific program's needs.  
The more I try to figure out the real world staffing situation across the 
country, I think it is well above 100 pianos/fulltime tech, maybe 140/tech 
average. 

It's been said before, but I think needs repeating:  Solely using one 
standard for the # of pianos/full time tech is potentially misleading, and 
disregards the point of using the formula.  If you've crunched the numbers, 
you realize how meaningless this one point of reference is, because the 
formula might give you 40 pianos/full time tech, or less!  Or possible more.  
I think that when the Guidelines was first developed there was some 
discussion about abandoning a standard recommendation altogether.  But the 
compromise number seems to be more helpful than harmful - and it will be MORE 
helpful, if we successfully disseminate the need to use the formula and 
crunch the numbers.
 
 <<We will keep this topic open until the end of the forum in
 Arlington. I propose that at the forum, we put the question of the
 formula to a vote. If there is any dissension from those who cannot
 attend speak now.>>

I hope you all read my upcoming newsletter article (I have to finish it 
first...), which will address not only Guidelines and contract tech issues, 
but it will also argue for attempting to get a better handle on what the real 
world service situation is like.  It will also recommend that CAUT adopt 
practices of promoting and implementing the Guidelines.
 
 << If something can be incorporated into the Guidelines to help technicians
 get through to the bean counters, it is worth pursuing.>>

YES!  Ken, did you have a formula worked up on piano value/depreciation 
relating to rebuilding and servicing?   Also replacement vs. 
maintenance/rebuilding?  It seems that we could include proposals for 
calculating maintenance/rebuilding/replacement options, all of which may 
appeal to the administrative beancounters.  I think this could be included in 
the Guidelines if we reviewed the Guidelines about every ten years.  That 
would allow us to account for changes in the piano and piano service markets, 
as well as any changes in the way music schools use acoustic keyboard 
instruments.

Another idea would be for one of us to write an article about the experiences 
of piano technicians in upgrading programs.  School administrators are like 
the rest of us, they relate to the lessons of real life experiences.  An 
article illustrating Guidelines implementation in the real world might even 
make a great companion to the Guidelines.  It might make a good project for 
next year.

FWIW, I have had interesting conversations with several full time techs here 
on the West coast, including a very interesting talk with Robert Koning, the 
head tech at SC, who seems to finally be making some real headway there (he 
just got one more 1/2 time tuner, to bring his total staff to 2 full time 
equiv. techs incl. himself).  Maybe more on that later.

OK, I'll shutup and go back to work....

Bill Shull
University of Redlands, La Sierra University, Riverside City College