Formula Concerns

[Fred Sturm]

Jeff,
	I agree with you that the changes in the formula need to at least try
to reflect reality as much as possible. This is the direction I have
been trying to move in. For instance, you will note that in my latest
proposal for "acceptable standards," a performance instrument can rate a
multiplier as low as 0.1, while a practice room neglected piano can have
as high a 2.5. That's a 25 to 1 difference in that category. I think
you'll find that if you plug in those numbers, and plug in 1.0 as a
default for "quality" as I also suggest, you'll find the results far
closer to reality than they were.
	A couple more comments interspersed below:

Jeff Tanner wrote:
> 
> Mike,
> Hadn't thought about it that way, but you make a very good point.  I agree
> wholeheartedly with your concern.
> 
> Still, the way the current formula works has its problems in that it comes
> to what appears on the surface to be a reasonable result purely by chance,
> because the workload for each piano has no foundation in reality.  (i.e.,
> 103.4 recital grands per tech, while general practice rooms might command
> 6.6 per tech, or old Hamiltons I've not touched in 4 years because we don't
> use them need one tech for every 29.)  

If you neglect a piano completely, you shouldn't include it in the
calculation. Just drop it from inventory for purposes of the formula.

> This, in my view, challenges the
> formula's credibility.  There's no possible way the results can reflect the
> actual need except by accident.  The fact that administrators don't know
> this doesn't give the formula more credibility, it just hides the error.
> And if the PTG is going to stand behind it the formula ought to have a
> solid foundation in the numbers which create the result.
> 
> I'm also concerned that our effort to tweak our current formula to more
> closely represent what everybody is already doing might be
> counter-effective to what the formula was initially intended to represent:
> actual need.  If we're trying to tweak numbers to reflect reality, then we
> need to change the numbers which aren't realistic, not simply modify them
> to achieve a higher workload result.

I agree we shouldn't _just_ tweak numbers to "closely represent what
everybody is already doing," but when it comes down to it, "the proof is
in the pudding." We need people to do the numbers and then comment
whether they seem to work in their circumstances. Two different
approaches simultaneously - approaching reality by "figuring out," and
"tweaking to reflect reality." We need to do both.
> 
> After I realized this last year, I started working on a prototype formula
> which bases the final result more accurately on a situational workload for
> each piano. A recital grand is based on between 2.9 and 8.1 pianos per
> tech, depending on concert load, and general practice room pianos at around
> 300 with others falling all over the scale.
<snip>  
> Jeff

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico