Workload - interpreting the numbers/assessing inventory need

[Bdshull@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Fred,

This is excellent.  This helps to connect the formula with the total picture 
re: piano service, rebuilding and inventory purchase/replacement.  This will 
help schools at all levels, including smaller schools with contract techs.  
We are addressing that indirectly now, but not specifically enough.  

Not to muddy the waters (and maybe your idea will help clear them up), but I 
wish we had a way of addressing the problem many smaller schools face.  I 
called it the FTE problem in my PTJ CAUCT article last year.   Schools with 
500 music majors and 50 pianos are more easily able to afford adequate piano 
service staffing than schools with 120 majors and 50 pianos.   Same # of 
pianos, hugely different income.  Usage variables may be different, but 
humidity variables could be the same, and the small school simply cannot 
afford the necessary staffing to keep up.  

>From the perspective of the music educator, how many pianos are necessary for 
a particular type and size of program?  And from the technician's point of 
view, what kind of information does the workload formula tell us about the 
inventory (too many, too few pianos)?

Does NASM (or anyone) recommend numbers of pianos for a given program which 
we need to be aware of as we evaluate the staffing needs of a school?  This 
would be helpful too, I think, along with your excellent proposal.  Maybe a 
school's piano inventory is first determined by the number of buildings and 
rooms available to house pianos, but that somewhat "cart before horse" 
approach directly impacts us.  I am not sure we want to tell a school that it 
has too many pianos, but we might do well to be up to speed if there are 
points of reference for this in academia, or else we should be encouraging 
and helping to get there.  Either way, the Guidelines should show an 
awareness of this, and refer to the general numbers.

Ideas?

Bill Shull, RPT
La Sierra University

In a message dated 5/3/2002 12:29:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
fssturm@unm.edu writes:


> I'm going off in a different direction for a moment. I think it would
> be useful to append a short explanatory note to the formula, for the use
> of both the techs and any administrators/faculty they might show it to.
> This won't be in the form of a draft, just preliminary ideas for what
> might be contained in such a statement.
> 
>     The numbers generated by the workload formula are useful beyond simply
> producing a "recommended workload" and a recommended staffing level.
> They can also provide insights into specific needs and long term
> planning.
>     Each factor (multiplier) will be a number between 0.1 and 2.0 [these
> numbers are arbitrary, and should probably be fussed with]. Under the
> design of this formula, numbers will generally be fairly close to 1.0
> for most factors in most average situations. Numbers 1.2 or above, or
> 0.8 or below, indicate special circumstances that deserve scrutiny. Some
> examples:
> 1) Under "climate control," numbers under 0.8 indicate conditions that
> lead to tuning instability and other deterioration of pianos. Humidity
> control in the building is strongly encouraged in these cases.
> Alternately, humidity control systems can be installed in individual
> pianos. Investment in humidity control is probably the single most cost
> effective investment in terms of achieving and maintaining high
> standards.
> 2) Under "condition" and/or "age," low numbers indicate a need to
> consider possibly contracting out a fairly large amount of
> rebuilding/reconditioning work over the short term, and/or investing in
> new pianos. High numbers in these areas indicate a new inventory, which
> can be expected to deteriorate over time if plans are not made for
> regular replacement. In other words, if staffing is based on these
> numbers, without simulataneously committing to a regular program of
> replacement, over time the staffing needs will increase and/or quality
> will suffer.
> 3) Under "usage" and "acceptable standards," low numbers will generally
> indicate a conservatory or performance oriented situation, while higher
> numbers will indicate more of a "general" music department situation. If
> this is not the case, low numbers may indicate an inadequate inventory,
> while low numbers may indicate more instruments than are necessary.
> 
>     As always, comments/suggestions welcome and solicited.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> 



---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/9d/76/3f/b3/attachment.htm

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