new formula, (long)

[Fred Sturm]

Comments interspersed below:
Wimblees@aol.com wrote:
> 
> My Dear Colleagues.
> 
> I have been doing some thinking about the workload formula. 
<snip>
> if we are going to try
> to persuade schools to hire the right number of technicians, we need
> to put together a formula that is more "administrator friendly." We
> need a formula that an administrator can easily work out, which more
> accurately reflects the conditions at his/her music department or
> school.

Wim,
	We already have such a thing. It is in the text of the Guidelines
document. It says that programs with strong performance emphasis need
one technician per 40 - 60 pianos, while programs with less performance
emphasis need one tech per 60 - 80 pianos. The changes I am proposing
would expand that range to 40 to 100 pianos with different descriptions,
but continue to give a simple, straightforward recommendation. Steinway
Guidelines similarly provide a simple approach: 40 - 60 pianos per tech.
	The Workload Formula is an attempt to account for differences between
situations. And those differences are vast and easily seen. Compare a
situation with humidity controlled within 10% to one which has swings of
75%, to cite just one example. But one isn't required to do the
figuring, if it seems too complex. Just show the administrator the
general recommendation. 

<snip>
> Here is what I came up with. I took the list of pianos in my
> department and put down how many times per school year I tune each
> piano. At Alabama there are 36 weeks of school. (The department
> virtually shuts down during the summer.) Concert Hall pianos get tuned
> an average of twice a week, so that is 72 times. Piano faculty pianos
> are tuned once a week, so that is 36 times. Class room pianos are
> tuned once a month. Applied studio pianos get tuned 4 times a year.
>  And so forth.  
> 
> Then I gave each piano a "setting" number as follows.
> 
> Setting:  5 = concert/recital hall,  4 = piano faculty/choir
> room/class room,
> 3 = grand practice rooms/voice/string studios, 2 = other applied
> studios, 1 = other pianos.
> 
> These numbers represents how much care the piano require. The number
> is _not_ the number of hours of care each require. It is just a
> multiplier based on how much care the piano needs. In my situation,
> applied studio pianos, for the most part, do not need much care. The
> grands in the practice room need quite a bit of care, and, of course,
> the concert hall and recital hall pianos need a lot of care.

	Well, if all you do is tune, all you need to know is the number of
tunings per piano. That's how a lot of contract situations work (maybe
the majority of institutional situations). But if you regulate, voice,
rebush keys, file hammers, brush knuckles, replace parts, etc, etc, then
you need to account for that time as well. And it seems to me this is
what we need to aim for: a prediction based on comprehensive maintenance
of pianos over the long haul. 
	Can't do that without getting complicated - knowing how fast pianos are
getting worn out (usage), how often they need tuning to stay at pitch
(humidity), how many are in need of rebuilding/recond right now
(condition), and so forth. I believe the factors selected by those who
created the formula about 15 years ago are pretty good indicators of
differences between one situation and another.
> 
> I would like some feedback on this. Did some of you come up with
> numbers that closely represent your situation?
> 
> Wim Blees RPT
> U of Alabama

My own motivation for trying to amend the current formula is based on
experience: I worked the numbers and found they predicted 3 to 4 full
time techs were needed here for our 80 pianos. That wasn't useful, and
doesn't reflect reality. For my own situation, working the draft numbers
I have developed in cooperation and consultation with a number of fellow
cauts, I find I need one full time tech. This reflects reality pretty
well as I see it. I don't know that it works for conservatory
situations, though, and would really like to see some feedback from
those few caut list techs who work at conservatories.

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico