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