Guidelines Question

[Fred Sturm]

Wim,
	Thanks for providing your numbers. Your Usage and Standards numbers are
pretty high. I expect the revised factors would make a fairly large
difference there, as they include a much more finely defined range of
choices, with a tendency to create lower average numbers. And almost all
the factors were changed slightly, so there will definitely be a
substantial change in outcome if you re-calculate using the current
numbers. 
	For instance, 1.2 currently means climate control within 10% (pretty
uncommon). I would guess yours was based on 1.0 overall (within 30%),
with 1.3 for those pianos which have humidity control installed,
yielding an average of 1.2. If yours would now fall in the next category
of within 25% variance (1.0), your workload would drop from the current
108 to 97. If in addition usage should change to, say, 1.2 (and I think
that it is likely the number would drop with the additional choices
available), the workload would drop to 83.
	The information I received over the past year from various people who
ran the numbers showed that three or four factors were yielding numbers
that seemed skewed too far in one direction or other, so I made small
changes to account for this. The original numbers I offered were real
"seat of the pants" educated guess work. I think the "final" numbers are
pretty darned good from what I've seen so far.
Regards,
Fred

Wimblees@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Fred, here are my numbers
> 
>      Number of pianos - 75 (including 4 h'chrds and 1 forte)
> 
>    
> 
>      Condition - 1.1
>      Quality (rebuilding) - .9
>      Climate - 1.2
>      Age - .9
>      Usage -1.4
>      Standards - 1.3
>      Uprights/ grand - 1
> 
>        Workload factor - 60
>        
> 
>           Workload - 108.4
>           Techs needed - .7
> 
>       If I change the workload to 40, I get 72.3, or 1 tech.
> 
> Wim