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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC