Workload-"condition"

[Paul E. Dempsey]

Fred,

Keep on plowing! I read with interest your post and awaited anxiously 
for the next installment. I agree totally with your thoughts re 
humidity/climate controls. We have NONE in this facility, and the Ohio 
Valley/West Virginia weather extremes are just that...extreme. Temps in 
the 90's last week and frost/freeze warnings this week with daytime 
temps in the 50's. Ah, springtime in Appalachia.

Paul Dempsey
Marshall University


Fred Sturm wrote:


>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
>

-------------------
Paul E. Dempsey RPT
Piano Technician
Department of Music
Marshall University