workload formula revisions

[Mark Cramer]

Thanks for your hard work on this Fred.

I have to think about the "Quality" variable for awhile.

Presuming others like myself use the "Guidelines" categorization of
inventory to predict more than theoretical workload, I'm not in a hurry to
drop this variable.

For instance, doing a query under the "Quality" variable can give a
"short-list" of pianos to budget major rebuilding for.

As well, a base is provided for calculating cost of upgrading inventory to
best quality, from present.

"Condition" has a major implication on workload, but "Quality" seems to
impact the decision to improve "condition" at least as radically as
"Acceptable Standards."

Regarding the direct workload implications of "Quality," I do hear what
you're saying, Fred.

The irony is similar to replacing old inventory with new, in that during the
first year of new, the workload is actually increased.

Such insights wouldn't have been widely shared without your effort. I hope
to see more input on this question as well.

Mark Cramer,
Brandon University






-----Original Message-----
From: owner-caut@ptg.org [mailto:owner-caut@ptg.org]On Behalf Of Fred
Sturm
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:03 AM
To: caut@ptg.org
Subject: workload formula revisions


Fellow Cauts,
	Last fall I suggested a couple revisions to the "draft revised workload
formula." I have received no feedback to date, so am reposting in hopes
somebody will have something to say. Well, I know plenty of people will
have plenty to say, so what I am really hoping is that some of you will
take the trouble to write it down and post it <g>.
	With respect to "quality," I have come to the conclusion that the whole
category is unworkable, at least as it is currently described. I
understand the initial notion: that a lower quality piano will require
more work to get it to a given level of performance than will a higher
quality piano. But in practical terms, pianos one would describe as
"Poor, should be replaced" are generally placed where they have very low
priority, and given minimal attention; "fair, worth reconditioning"
pianos are generally uprights, and get mostly tuning, general
maintenance, and low priority reconditioning - much less time than
rebuild; "good, worth partial reconditioning" and "excellent, worth
complete rebuilding" pianos get the most service day to day, and are
most time consuming from the point of view of major overhaul work.
        So the input numbers produce results opposite from what
experience
would dictate. I don't like the idea of reversing the input numbers - it
seems like a rather strange "message to send." Instead, I think the
category should be eliminated and some of the concepts merged into
"acceptable standards."
        A preliminary draft I would suggest follows (including the
notion that
the performance piano should reflect its workload better):

Acceptable Standards
0.1 Top performance: Piano is maintained in meticulous condition at all
times: tuning, voicing, and regulation at highest possible standard,
with daily or near daily attention; rebuilding on an accelerated
schedule so that piano is kept virtually "like new." (Generally concert
instruments in recital hall)
0.4 Near top performance: Piano maintained as above, but with weekly to
bi-weekly attention, and somewhat slacker rebuilding schedule.
(Generally piano teaching studios and the like. In some situations may
apply to concert instruments).
0.7 Excellent: Piano kept near performance level - well
tuned, voiced, and regulated. Monthly attention. Rebuilding on a regular
basis.
1.3 Good: Piano needs to be kept at an acceptable musical level -
adequately tuned, voiced and regulated. Bi-monthly attention.
Reconditioned on a regular basis.
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. Once to twice a semester attention.
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."

	The foregoing is what I posted last October. One additional change I'd
like to suggest at this time, with respect to the "Grand/Upright"
category. I think those numbers should be altered a bit. Currently it's
1.2 upright/0.8 grand, with the idea a grand takes maybe 1.5 times the
work of an upright. I'm thinking, to reflect some of the feedback I've
received for the formula as a whole, that this should be changed to
either 1.1 upright/0.7 grand, or possibly 1.2 upright/0.6 grand.
Amazingly enough, such seemingly tiny changes can alter the final
results by a considerable amount.
	What do you think? Comments/suggestions?
        For purposes of seeing how this works in the database, enter a
default 1.0 for every piano under "quality." Enter the additional inputs
under Acceptable Standards by keying in the numbers for those pianos
which meet the criteria. And enter the grand/upright inputs manually
(sorting first will make it pretty fast).
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico