Revised workload formula

[Michael Jorgensen]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hi Willem
          Your formula is a brilliant work plan for helping individual
technicians organize and budget their time.  Contractors could use it to
build a plan for bringing an institutional customer up to standards
within a given time and budget.   It also allows one to organize pianos
into various categories for specific service.  Such a design is very
useful for viewing options.  Technicians and administrators could see
how fairly work and time are being allocated.  There is much to be said
for the design you have.
       However, what is needed for the Guidelines is a workload formula,
not so much a work plan.  The resultant workload figure should remain
stable for years barring major changes in an inventory.   It should also
help universities understand the importance of, and affect of , things
like humidity control, usage,  age, and condition etc. on work load.
The original formula begins with recommended workload, then makes
adjustments.  In your formula, we begin with details which only a
technician can provide,  then calculate the workload.     Using the old
formula, it is possible to get a quick ballpark figure without as much
knowledge.  Granted, it will take a technician to do a true complete
analysis to get a more accurate figure.   Faculty members do have a
general knowledge of age, condition, usage, etc.  I don't think they
could work with yours without a technician.
       Amending the existing formula preserves credibility while using
previous work.  It also saves time, something we don't have a lot of.
I'm glad our nation amends the same constitution instead of constantly
writing new ones like unstable countries.
       We already have base workloads we agree on.   If we had to agree
on things like how often to tune, how much time it should take etc.,  it
could be a nightmare.  Administrators think differently.  If we state
that tuning takes an hour, supervisors could expect eight tunings per
day from us.  I would either die before the end of the week, quit,  or
seriously compromise the work.    Though I like what you have done, I
don't think it would work as well for the guidelines.
-Mike



Wimblees@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 4/30/02 3:34:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
> jorge1ml@cmich.edu writes:
>
>
>
>> Hi Wim,
>>       I'm confused.  Are you saying administrators and/or faculty
>> can just do the math without us or complete the whole formula
>> without us?
>> -Mike
>
> I am not sure if he "just" did the math, that he can complete the
> formula. Part of the problem with the CAUT formula is that it requires
> knowledge of the age, technical condition, humidity levels, overall
> quality, age, etc., that an administrator, or even a teacher, probably
> wouldn't know. What an administrator would know, if the he/she has
> communicated with the piano tech and/or the piano department, is how
> many times a piano gets tuned, and perhaps even additional work the
> piano tech does. (especially in a contract situation). And if the tech
> has approached the administrator about the funds, even what additional
> work a piano needs. I am not saying it will be an easy task for an
> administrator, and a "good one" will automatically leave this to the
> experts. But if he was given a little help, it is possible. If
> anything, the numbers will be much easier to understand. They are
> straight forward. No multipliers, no guessing if a piano gets "light
> usage, medium usage or heavy us! age."
>
> Wim

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/7d/d4/6b/bd/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--