Guidelines Question

[Fred Sturm]

Jeff,
	Certainly the revisions are aimed at coming closer to real life
situations in comparison with the original workload formula. But the
contention here is that the original formula overstated the need. My own
take is that it was intended as a polemical document rather than as a
useful one (and its introductory remarks make that fairly clear, if
you'll read them over). And the results from plugging in the numbers
were not only "unrealistic" (from the point of view of the "real
world"), but were often a gross overstatement of the need. Worked okay
if you had an excellent inventory in excellent shape, but if conditions
were fair to poor, it ratcheted up the predicted need beyond reason.
	In my case, 80 pianos in a condition of neglect after a long period of
understaffing were predicted to need four full time techs. Current
formula predicts close to one full time, which I would call a very good
level of staffing, near "ideal." I can't imagine what four full timers
would find to pass the time. The few colleagues who have also run the
current numbers have also stated that results are very close to "dead
on" in their own situations. 
	The Symposium was a resounding success - excellent panelists, excellent
discussion, and a very good beginning to what we all hope will be an
on-going dialogue. When I get the time and energy, maybe I'll write more
specifically (a lot piled up while I was gone, and my brain is still
suffering post-convention overload). At any rate, there should be a
report in the CAUT newsletter.
Regards,
Fred
Jeff Tanner wrote:
> 
> Avery,
> Bear in mind that the new revisions to the formula are not designed to
> produce a result which necessarily reflects the actual need of the
> inventory, but also take into account real world understaffing, so that
> administrators won't laugh at you when you tell them you really need 3.6
> technicians.
> 
> Mine laughs at me (well, he doesn't laugh, but the look on his face is more
> like, "you've got to be kidding") when I say I need money to rebuild one of
> those 70's Steinways.
> 
> I hate that I had to miss the convention.  I REALLY wanted to go this year.
> Just couldn't prioritize the extra out of pocket expense.  Believe me, I
> tried.  I'd love to hear what happened at the symposium.
> 
> Jeff
>