new formula, part two

[Fred Sturm]

Wim,
	I can see the potential use for an "intermediate" or "alternative" way
of assessing work needs. I think such a thing would be especially useful
for contract situations, particularly small schools. But I agree with
Jeff Tanner that something along the lines of what Richard West posted a
while back (I think it was sort of aimed at fraternities and the like in
his case) would be a better starting point. It had a sense of scheduled
regular maintenance - how often to tighten screws, to regulate, to file
hammers, etc, along with regular tuning - with approximate time for
each. It's the sort of thing you could adapt to any number of
circumstances, including other institutions like churches. 
	Certainly if full time or part time university techs wanted to use it
instead of the current formula, that would be fine, too. But for a lot
of us, I really don't think it _would_ be all that useful, simply
because of the way reconditioning/rebuilding procedures are integrated
into the workload, and the number of "touch-up" operations (walk through
and grab the offending unisons, 5 minutes per piano, type of thing). Not
to mention administrative details, paperwork, communications, etc.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
 
Wimblees@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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.