new formula, part two

[Wimblees@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 4/18/02 8:14:20 PM Central Daylight Time, 
dm.porritt@verizon.net writes:


> Wim:
>  
> I'm sure you didn't mean any insult to the people who have been doing this 
> work for many years, and who have spent many hours compiling this survey.  
> You in effect said: I've been at this for most of a year and I came up with 
> a better formula last night!  

In my first "new formula" post, I gave due credence, ( at least I think I 
did), to those who have done a lot of work in the past. I will do it again. I 
recognize a lot of work has gone into this, and I am not discounting it. But 
just because I have been doing this for only a year, doesn't mean I don't 
have some ideas, nor should my ideas be passed over. Sometime a new fresh 
face can come up with a better solution than those who have been looking at 
the situation for a long time. 


> 
> The whole process IS complex.  Fortunately most of the administrators have 
> many advanced degrees and well-above-average IQs.  If the process is too 
> simplified it looks like we haven't done our homework.  I've used both the 
> CAUT Guidelines and the Steinway guidelines and the comprehensive look of 
> the report makes it obvious that we've spent some time on this, and that 
> we've consulted with experts in the field.  I agree that the CAUT 
> Guidelines have needed some revision and some good progress has been made 
> this year.  I don't think anyone can reinvent this wheel one evening.
>  
> dave
>  
Yes, the administrators have advanced degrees, but those degrees are not in 
the field of piano repair. They are either in music, (department chairs), or 
administration. Although they might be able to evaluate complex formulas, I 
think they really don't care about the piano tuning and repair situation as 
much as we want them to, or think they should. On the whole, I think we 
sometimes take ourselves way too seriously. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do 
our work to the best of our ability. But when it comes to presenting our 
work, I am afraid some of us think much more of our work than most 
administrators do. And for that reason, if we make the formula too complex, 
administrators will not take the time to understand it. And that, I think, 
will be more detrimental to our "cause," than not making a presentation at 
all. 

I look at the need for a workload formula for three reasons. For ourselves, 
to get a grip on how much work are doing. Second, for us to present to our 
administrators, to either tell them they are doing a good job because they 
hired the right number of techs, or perhaps to try to convince them we need 
help. And the third reason for the survey is to try to convince 
administrators at schools where they do not have a full time technician, that 
one is needed. It is the latter group that would more likely use a simple 
formula than take the time to evaluate a complex one. 

That is why I said earlier that we need something between the simple "one 
tech for every 40 - 60 pianos" formula, and the complex formula the CAUT 
committee has devised. Hopefully my idea will fill that gap. 

Wim 




---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/0e/68/d7/87/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--