<HTML>In a message dated 4/18/02 8:14:20 PM Central Daylight Time, dm.porritt@verizon.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Wim: I'm sure you didn't mean any insult to the people who have been doing this work for many years, and who have spent many hours compiling this survey.  You in effect said: I've been at this for most of a year and I came up with a better formula last night!  </BLOCKQUOTE> In my first "new formula" post, I gave due credence, ( at least I think I did), to those who have done a lot of work in the past. I will do it again. I recognize a lot of work has gone into this, and I am not discounting it. But just because I have been doing this for only a year, doesn't mean I don't have some ideas, nor should my ideas be passed over. Sometime a new fresh face can come up with a better solution than those who have been looking at the situation for a long time. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> The whole process IS complex.  Fortunately most of the administrators have many advanced degrees and well-above-average IQs.  If the process is too simplified it looks like we haven't done our homework.  I've used both the CAUT Guidelines and the Steinway guidelines and the comprehensive look of the report makes it obvious that we've spent some time on this, and that we've consulted with experts in the field.  I agree that the CAUT Guidelines have needed some revision and some good progress has been made this year.  I don't think anyone can reinvent this wheel one evening. dave </BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, the administrators have advanced degrees, but those degrees are not in the field of piano repair. They are either in music, (department chairs), or administration. Although they might be able to evaluate complex formulas, I think they really don't care about the piano tuning and repair situation as much as we want them to, or think they should. On the whole, I think we sometimes take ourselves way too seriously. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do our work to the best of our ability. But when it comes to presenting our work, I am afraid some of us think much more of our work than most administrators do. And for that reason, if we make the formula too complex, administrators will not take the time to understand it. And that, I think, will be more detrimental to our "cause," than not making a presentation at all. I look at the need for a workload formula for three reasons. For ourselves, to get a grip on how much work are doing. Second, for us to present to our administrators, to either tell them they are doing a good job because they hired the right number of techs, or perhaps to try to convince them we need help. And the third reason for the survey is to try to convince administrators at schools where they do not have a full time technician, that one is needed. It is the latter group that would more likely use a simple formula than take the time to evaluate a complex one. That is why I said earlier that we need something between the simple "one tech for every 40 - 60 pianos" formula, and the complex formula the CAUT committee has devised. Hopefully my idea will fill that gap. Wim </HTML>