Workload-"condition"

[Fred Sturm]

Judging from the deafening silence that greeted my last post, I guess
everyone is either in complete agreement, or just deleted because it was
too long to wade through <g>. I'll take it as the former, and plow
ahead. 
	[Seriously, though, I would appreciate some feedback on
humidity/climate control. Does it at least seem like we're in the
ballpark? My tendency at this point will be to adjust the percentage
categories, adding probably one more, but leaving the overall range of
multipliers the same.]
	The "condition" factor is one of the most troublesome in the Workload
Formula. As I see it, the major problem is that we aren't distinguishing
between pianos that will actually receive work, and those that might be
basket cases, but will be ignored anyway. Or, from a less cynical and
reality driven perspective, we aren't distinguishing between levels of
rebuilding vs reconditioning pianos are worthy of receiving.
	To give a cynical, reality based example, I'm sure that for many of us
the uprights in unlocked practice rooms are definitely worthy of a
"fair" to "poor" rating for condition. But we will probably do the bare
minimum work to these pianos, hoping to get rid of them and replace
them. They will not be worked on in proportion to the need.
	From a more idealistic perspective, even if we are (and I hope we are)
aiming at keeping every single piano under our care in optimum
condition, the level of work will vary. Some will get soundboards and
complete action replacement, while others will never receive (or merit)
more than reconditioning work. 
	I have a couple ideas for changes to address the problem, but first let
me present the condition factor as it now stands:

1990 version
(1.00) Excellent: Piano only needs routine maintenance - regulation,
tuning and voicing. 
(0.75) Good: Piano needs reconditioning - hammer filing, regulation,
tuning, voicing, and possibly some new parts (key bushings, center
pins), or minor repairs. 
(0.50) Fair: Piano needs partial rebuilding - new hammers and other
action parts, regulation, tuning and voicing. 
(0.25) Poor: Piano needs complete rebuilding - repair of replace
structurally damaged parts (pin block, soundboard), new strings, tuning
pins, action parts, regulation, tuning and voicing. 
	Note that (1.0) appears as "Excellent": the assumption in the 1990
version is that the average condition of the inventory must be excellent
(as defined) for the 60/1 fte workload to hold. 
	Also note the difference between extremes: Excellent is 1.0, while Poor
is 0.25. In other words, the 1990 version is saying (more or less) that
pianos needing major rebuilding will take 4 times the work of pianos in
excellent condition. (If all were excellent, 60 could be maintained by 1
fte, while if all were poor, only 15 could be maintained by 1 fte,
taking this factor in isolation). 
	But remember we are talking about the long term. This doesn't mean that
each and every piano in "poor" condition could be rebuilt instantly with
only 4 times the work required to maintain an equal number of pianos in
excellent condition. The explanatory text says that following the
recommended workload will allow for conditions to be maintained and kept
from deteriorating. And eventually the excellent pianos will need
reconditioning and rebuilding as well.

2002 version
1.4 - Excellent: Piano only needs routine maintenance - regulation,
tuning and voicing. 
1.0 - Good: Piano needs reconditioning - hammer filing, regulation,
tuning, voicing, and possibly some new parts (key bushings, centerpins)
or minor repairs.
0.6 - Fair: Piano needs partial rebuilding - new hammers and other
action parts, regulation, tuning and voicing.
0.3 - Poor: Piano needs complete rebuilding (pin block, soundboard), new
strings, tuning pins, action parts, regulation, tuning and voicing.
	Note again the (1.0) benchmark. The 2002 version is saying that,
isolating this one factor, a workload of 60/1 fte (or whichever other
base you select) will apply when the average condition is good. And
again note the extremes: Excellent is 1.4, while poor is 0.3, so the
difference is on the order of 4.7 times (not that different from the
1990 version - the main difference is where the 1.0 is located). Using
the 60 base, this predicts 1 fte could maintain 84 pianos in excellent
condition, or 18 in poor.

	Now let's get back to the problem identified at the beginning of this
post. I have a couple suggestions at the moment, and would welcome other
possibilities:
1) Simply distinguish between uprights and grands, on the grounds that
major rebuilding is much less likely for uprights, and even rebuilding
procedures are less time-consuming for uprights. 
	Uprights might have numbers like:
1.4 - Excellent
1.1 - Good
0.8 - Fair
0.6 - Poor
while grands might change to:
1.2 - Excellent
0.8 - Good
0.5 - Fair
0.25 - Poor
	Another possible approach might be to distinguish individually between
pianos worthy of, and likely to receive, different levels of service,
such as (1) Rebuilding, (2) Reconditioning, (3) Only routine
maintenance. Finer levels might also be distinguished. I'm afraid I
don't know what to suggest for numbers in this case, and the text would
have to be rewritten pretty extensively to take this approach.
	Remember that we are looking at this in isolation, but the formula
works as a whole. Thus, whatever inputs we arrive at here will be
modified by, most importantly, "acceptable standards." So the setting
the piano is in will be accounted for elsewhere as well.
	I have to say that this is the factor I am least comfortable with, in
terms of trying to come up with numbers that will actually work. I'm
sure it will require some jockeying. I am not necessarily comfortable
with where the 1.0 is, let alone the degrees of difference for various
levels.
	Once again, your comments are solicited.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico