Workload - interpreting the numbers

[Teresa Severin]

I apologize CAUTS.
I sent an email message to the Department of Commerce to the wrong address.
Duh.
Sincerely,
Teresa Severin
Dampp-Chaser Corp.


Original Message -----
From: "Avery Todd" <atodd@UH.EDU>
To: <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: Workload - interpreting the numbers


> Teresa,
>
> >Young Oh,
>
> Who is Young Oh? The message below was written by Fred Sturm.
>
> >Thank you for your offer but we have decided not to meet with you
regarding
> >export opportunities.
>
> What offer and what export opportunities?????
>
> >I have learned that in the past,  our company has
> >been associated with representatives of the Department of Commerce
>
> This isn't DOC, it's PTG!
>
> >and our
> >feeling is that we have already explored the export opportunities offered
> >by the DOC.
>
> What export opportunities????????
>
> >Sincerely,
> >Teresa Severin
> >Vice President Marketing
> >Dampp-Chaser Corporation
>
> Do you really work for Dampp-Chaser or is this just the answer
> to a different e-mail than the one below. Am I missing something
> here? Just curious? :-)
>
> Avery
>
> >teresa_severin@dampp-chaser.com
> >800-438-1524
> >828-692-8271 USA
> >828-692-8272 (FAX)
> >P. O. Box 1610
> >Hendersonville  NC 28793
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm@unm.edu>
> >To: <caut@ptg.org>
> >Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:26 PM
> >Subject: Workload - interpreting the numbers
> >
> >
> >>  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
>