WIm, Definitely put something down for every piano. Let me try again. Under "Rebuilding Parameters" you are not looking at the current condition and needs for the piano. You are assessing what level of rebuilding/reconditioning you are going to give that piano over its lifetime. If it's an upright, you'll likely rate it under major or minor reconditioning, possibly minor rebuilding, because that's all that would make economic sense. A grand would likely rate minor rebuilding through complete rebuilding/remanufacturing, depending on the piano and on what you are set up to do. [And on whether your institution actually ever replaces pianos <g>.] Bare minimum would be "minor reconditioning," because every piano is worth at least that. I guess I can think of an exception, which is the loaner piano - you won't have it long enough. Perhaps that should have its own, additional category, say with a 1.4 to 1.6 multiplier. The complement to "Rebuilding Parameters" is "Condition," where you enter what the piano needs right now. The point to having both is that we are after the long term picture - how much manpower will it take to maintain the pianos over 20 years and more. "Rebuilding Parameters" tries to account for the long term; "Condition" is looking more at the short term. - Fred Wimblees@aol.com wrote: > > I understand what you say. But by not putting down any number for a > piano that doesn't need anything, wouldn't that skew the numbers > somewhat? Looking at the formula, a complete rebuild needs 0.4 techs, > and a minor reconditioning needs 1.2 Therefore, going even further, a > piano doesn't need anything would need a number around 2.0. If we > don't put any number down, the computer will put down a 0.0, which, > according to this formula, would be an instrument that needs more work > than a complete rebuild. > > Does this make sense, or am I still missing something here? > > Wim
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC