workload formula

[Fred Sturm]

Fellow CAUTs,
    Over the past year I've been looking at the workload formula fairly
carefully, and I think I have a good sense of what might be done to make
it more useful in the real world. I'd like to offer my thoughts to the
list to maybe stimulate some discussion prior to the convention. Please
note that these are just one man's opinions, and are being run up the
flagpole to be shot at.
	I basically agree with the 60 pianos per FTE (full time equivalent)
concept as a starting point (though it's on the idealistic side), but
only in "real world" circumstances. In other words, under conditions
where pianos vary as to age, condition and use, and where rebuilding is
a fairly major part of the workload. 
    The problem with the formula is that, for the 60/FTE ratio to be
produced, it assumes every piano is
1) Excellent condition - needing only routine maintenance (ie, not
needing reconditioning or rebuilding)
2) Excellent quality
3) Within 10% humidity variance
4) Within 15 years old
5) Light usage
(All these give a multiplying factor of 1.00. So, when multiplied by the
initial input of 60, these top conditions give a result of a 60/FTE
workload. Anything less than ideal circumstances leads to a calculated
workload of less than 60. In my own case, I did a rough calculation and
came up with a workload of about 15 pianos/FTE as an ideal for my
institution.)
    60 pianos per FTE works out to a bit more than 30 hours per piano
per year. Now if I had 60 pianos under my care which met those close to
ideal conditions, I think I'd be very hard pressed to spend more than 6
hours a year on each of them. Three two hour service sessions should be
more than adequate to keep them at a high standard under those
conditions. Say 8 hours a year, accounting for "overhead"
(administrative duties and the like). In other words, about 1/4 time.
And that's being generous.
    Am I off base here? I really don't think so. I think I could easily
handle 240 pianos as a full time load, _under these conditions_. Tuning
within a 10% humidity range is a dream. Next to new pianos with light
usage means a bit of light filing, touch up regulation, light needling,
and the like. When you start to vary the humidity more, increase the
usage, have a few need reconditioning, a few rebuilding, then it becomes
an actual, real job.
    So I think one thing we need to do is increase the multiplier for
these
"ideal" conditions above 1.00. Perhaps in such a way that, multiplied
together, they would produce about 4.00 (in keeping with my reasoning
above). Other levels should change accordingly. The formula should
produce an answer of 60 only when ages, usage, and conditions vary (say,
averaging 25% in each level), and humidity change is at least moderate
(fair). In other words, 60/FTE is only reasonable when there is pitch
change and wear to deal with.
    A few other specific changes I would make:
1) For age, add a category "under one year", with a multiplier smaller
than for 1 - 15 years. And with a note that this would apply
particularly to piano loan program instruments. This takes into account
the tuning instability and need for extra service.
2) Differentiate between grands and uprights. My sense is that grands
take at least 1.5 times the work of uprights.
3) Modify the wording under acceptable standards. Is there really a
purpose for "Poor: piano need not be kept completely functional - not
tunable, keys, strings, or parts broken" ? Does such a standard require
any time/labor at all?
4) Moderate the formula to include an expected outcome (level of
service, improvement vs. deterioration) with varied workloads.
5) Modify the humidity ranges to reflect real world conditions better.

In keeping with the above reasoning, here are some specific numbers:

I'd propose to begin with a sliding scale for the "Base Workload" (see
#4, above):
60 - pianos maintained at a generally excellent level - well-tuned,
voiced and regulated.
80 - Pianos kept in overall good condition
100 - Pianos kept in adequate condition
120 - Pianos kept in barely adequate condition.

For the following, descriptions are as in current Guidelines, except
where I provide specifics:
Condition
1.4 - Excellent
1.0 - Good
0.7 - Fair
0.5 - Poor

Quality
1.4 - Excellent
1.1 - Good
0.9 - Fair
0.7 - Poor

Climate Control
1.4 - Excellent: Within 15% (or has humidity control unit installed and
well-maintained)
1.1 - Good: Within 30%
0.9 - Fair: Within 50%
0.7 - Poor: Greater than 50%

Age
0.9 - New (Within one year old; applies particularly to piano loan
programs)
1.4 - Excellent (1 - 15 years old)
1.1 - Good (16 - 30)
0.9 - Fair (31 - 45)
0.7 - Poor (over 45)

Usage
1.4 - light
1.1 - Medium
0.8 - Heavy

Upright or Grand
1.2 - Upright
0.8 - Grand

Acceptable Standards 
(0.8) Excellent: Piano needs to be kept at performance level - well
tuned, voiced, and regulated. 
(1.3) Good: Piano needs to be kept at an acceptable musical level -
adequately tuned, voiced and regulated. 
(1.8) Fair: Piano need not be kept constantly at an acceptable musical
level - tuning allowed to deteriorate before retuning, voicing and
regulation low priority. 
(2.5) Poor: Piano use not at all critical - may be neglected to the
point of tuning once a year and "fixing what's broken when you get
around to it."



So there you have it. Please subject it to scrutiny and criticism. If
you have the time and inclination, plug the figures into your own
circumstances and see how they work out. ANd let us all know.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico