<HTML>Fred, Jeff, List: Like Fred, I, too, am still recovering from the convention, and just barely able to keep following this discussion while trying to catch up with the shop and field work (the life of the part-time CAUT).  However, I think there is one thing that we could add to the Guidelines along with the revised Forward/Introduction:  How To Use This Document.   It might include elements of the following explanation. The workload formula is not the only part of the Guidelines.  It is that portion which provides a way of figuring staffing need.  In my presentation at the Symposium I addressed the need to provide a report which assists the school in long range planning.  First, in many schools pianos are deteriorated, and a short term plan needs to address this, say, over 5 years (this will, of course, vary).  This can include inventory replacement, intensive rebuilding, or a combination of both.  If the rebuilding is contracted out, the staff technician may only have to add the administrative and prep work related to this contracting, along with the additional tuning of new/rebuilt pianos.  (This can be also expressed in the workload formula, but if the work is not in-house a separate document is essential.)  If the rebuilding is done in-house, the staffing must be increased during this short term period.   The workload formula will be directly useful here. Second, the normal maintenance workload anticipated for the entire planning period should be assessed.  The Guidelines workload formula is directly helpful here. Finally, there are other costs discussed in the Guidelines which the workload formula does not address:  building and maintaining a parts inventory; the office and related costs, etc.  These need to be factored into the smaller school contract tech position too, one way or another, at the percentages relevant to the full-time ratio of this position.  While most schools cannot control their financial future adequately over 20 years, it needs to know what to plan for, and how the present program fits into that plan.  Therefore the report should include a long term plan complete with as much detail as the school can afford to pay you to provide.   I agree that the workload formula as presented by Fred Sturm at the Symposium is as close as ever to being able to reflect the real world needs of a school.   My gratitude goes to Fred, and all those who have kept up the dialogue and numbers-crunching (including Jeff - I'm sure others would agree that you were still present in Chicago through your contributions on the CAUT list!).  The additional revisions of the Guidelines to make if relevant to all school situations, including the smaller school with contract technicians, provide a necessary context for the workload formula.   When you present your school's workload numbers in this planning context of meeting short term need, long term maintenance and additional budget/administrative need, the formula will seem the most realistic and comprehensible. Bill Shull, RPT Co-Chair, CAUT Committee <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Jeff,     Certainly the revisions are aimed at coming closer to real life situations in comparison with the original workload formula. But the contention here is that the original formula overstated the need. My own take is that it was intended as a polemical document rather than as a useful one (and its introductory remarks make that fairly clear, if you'll read them over). And the results from plugging in the numbers were not only "unrealistic" (from the point of view of the "real world"), but were often a gross overstatement of the need. Worked okay if you had an excellent inventory in excellent shape, but if conditions were fair to poor, it ratcheted up the predicted need beyond reason.     In my case, 80 pianos in a condition of neglect after a long period of understaffing were predicted to need four full time techs. Current formula predicts close to one full time, which I would call a very good level of staffing, near "ideal." I can't imagine what four full timers would find to pass the time. The few colleagues who have also run the current numbers have also stated that results are very close to "dead on" in their own situations.     The Symposium was a resounding success - excellent panelists, excellent discussion, and a very good beginning to what we all hope will be an on-going dialogue. When I get the time and energy, maybe I'll write more specifically (a lot piled up while I was gone, and my brain is still suffering post-convention overload). At any rate, there should be a report in the CAUT newsletter. Regards, Fred Jeff Tanner wrote: > > Avery, > Bear in mind that the new revisions to the formula are not designed to > produce a result which necessarily reflects the actual need of the > inventory, but also take into account real world understaffing, so that > administrators won't laugh at you when you tell them you really need 3.6 > technicians. > > Mine laughs at me (well, he doesn't laugh, but the look on his face is more > like, "you've got to be kidding") when I say I need money to rebuild one of > those 70's Steinways. > > I hate that I had to miss the convention.  I REALLY wanted to go this year. > Just couldn't prioritize the extra out of pocket expense.  Believe me, I > tried.  I'd love to hear what happened at the symposium. > > Jeff </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>