Workload-"condition"

[Fred Sturm]

Wim,
	My "forefathers," as you put it, are technicians with decades of
experience working in a higher education environment (compared to your 9
months). I have identified many more than one flaw in the workload
formula, and have proposed incremental changes to overcome them. I have
found very few flaws in the text of the Guidelines, which I strongly
suggest you obtain (it's a free download, thanks to the efforts of other
colleagues) and read. Many of your comments indicate your ignorance of
what this document contains. They also indicate your ignorance of the
discussion that has gone on for two years now, including much of what
has gone on since you subscribed to the caut list. I suggest you search
the archives and inform yourself before presuming to teach all of us
what you, frankly, don't know.
Regards,
Fred
More comments follow:
Wimblees@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 4/29/02 9:44:48 AM Central Daylight Time,
> fssturm@unm.edu writes:
> 
>      Personally, I prefer to build on the efforts of those who
>      went before
>      me.
>      Regards,
>      Fred Sturm
>      University of New Mexico
> 
> I appreciate your sentiments, Fred. They are admirable. But what makes
> them so valuable? Just because our "forefathers" came up with a
> formula, doesn't necessarily make them right. I am not saying they are
> wrong. But if we are going to pursue this matter to the fullest, we
> should look at every possible way of measuring a work load.
> 
> I am sure when, whomever came up with the formula, got started, there
> were many mistakes, recalculations, etc. That is what I am doing with
> mine. I came up with something, and have revised it three times, to
> reflect problem others pointed out. I am not even sure if my latest
> version is the final one. 

Wow, after three times you're still not even sure! What humility!

> But I think it needs careful consideration
> before it is dismissed.  As I said, I think the CAUT formula is
> confusing. You have already found one flaw in it. But I think the
> whole concept is working backwards. It starts with what is considered
> a workload, and then tries to justify it with different formulas.
> That, I think, is a flawed way of getting the results we are looking
> for.

	It starts based on a workload that has demonstrated its usefulness over
many years in many situations. It then tries to account for variations
in circumstances. The 40, 60, 80, 100 numbers are NOT arbitrary. They
are based on real technicians working at real jobs over many, many
years. We are not trying to justify the base workload by means of the
formula. We are trying to adapt it to various circumstances. 
> 
> Mind you, I am not discounting your work, nor the work done by your
> predecessors. If it wasn't for the time and effort you and the others
> have put into this project, we wouldn't even be here to begin with.
> But just because you've worked on it for a long time, doesn't
> necessarily make it right. I just want you to be open minded enough to
> look at what I've put together, and consider the possibility that it
> might be better.
> 
> Wim

I think I have an open enough mind. It's not a question of that. I am
engaged in facilitating a common effort toward a common goal. Efforts
involving large numbers of people require persistence, incremental
steps, and a lot of communication. Read the list of those who endorsed
the existing Guidelines document. I am working with all those people in
mind. 
	I believe that what was developed and communicated this fall (in the
Journal and on the web-site) represents an improvement over the initial
formula, which was, I think, developed without adequate practical trial
in varied situations. I also believe that we have not arrived at the
final answer yet. I hope to develop, with the help of positive
contributions from my colleagues, a formula that we can stand behind. 
	At this point, my impression is that you are working at cross-purposes,
and that your comments are largely counter-productive.