<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> We shouldn't forget that the workload formula is in the appendix, and although it is important, we shouldn't put undue emphasis on the formula.    The body of the document tries to describe what elements make up the task of taking care of an inventory of pianos.  This is the most important aspect of the Guidelines; the workload formula is secondary.  I don't mean to dimish the formula's important because as I read it, the formula attempts to describe the elements that affect a technician's ability to meet the tasks outlined in the body of the Guidelines. I mention this because we shouldn't lose sight of our primary task--to define clearly what it takes to maintain a piano or group of pianos.  Our ability to make this definition clear is what in essence determines our job description.  If, for example, I was hired only as a tuner, I could tune all the pianos here monthly.  But there's more to maintaining a piano than just tuning and that's reflected in my job description.  Our task is to try to get schools to understand that piano care involves many things and that there are very few people who know how to deliver those things competently.  It's my feeling that any full-time position should justify a minimum $40,000 salary with no outside work. The Guidelines can help us clarify and define our responsibilities such that it's clear to those around us that we're highly skilled and highly specialized and therefore deserve to be paid accordingly.  We are not custodians! But first we need to educate ourselves.  IMHO one of the main uses of the Guidelines is to educate technicians.  If we don't know what being a college or university technician is all about, then we may look at a job that promises $20,000 annually for tuning 200 pianos a couple of times during the school year and believe that sounds pretty good.  We may take that job and then find out about the pitfalls later. So few people know what it takes to maintain a piano over its lifetime.  Most people inside and outside the institutional setting have been taught that a piano needs to be tuned 2 to 4 times a year, and that's about it.  Why don't institutions and private piano owners know that a piano needs to be regulated every 5 to 10 years or at least once in the time that an owner has the piano?  The education process is a difficult one.  But when a school is having trouble with pianos and needs answers, that's when we need to be prepared and that's when knowing the Guidelines becomes most important.  That's why the Guidelines are invaluable.  What an adminstrator first needs to know is what is required to maintain a group of pianos over a number of years and then the administrator needs to know what helps or hinders a technician from meeting those requirements.   The reason the Guidelines can appear to be self-serving is that we too often look at what helps or hinders a technician (the workload formula) rather than looking at what it takes to maintain an inventory. I know the two are related, but it's a question of emphasis.  We need to always start with what it takes to keep a piano working.  But we need to also keep refining the formula and in that I applaud the current discussions and Fred Sturm's diligence. Richard West PS:  Do you all have job descriptions?  Have you ever sat down and figured out what percent of your time is devoted to each item of the description?  That can be an eye opening experience.         Wimblees@aol.com wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>In a message dated 5/29/02 11:19:14 AM Central Daylight Time, jab367@email.byu.edu writes:     <blockquote TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I'm refering to the abilities and experience of the technician. Where some technicians are very slow and methodical others are extremely efficient and fast.</blockquote> When I did a survey many years ago, I found tuning times varied from 30 minutes to 2 hours. And these were all "experienced" RPT's. Regulation and repair times varied considerably also. If I followed the work time pamphlet put out by the PTG, I would get bored. I seem to be able to work at a pace almost twice as fast as what is recommended. The problem you brought up, I think, is the same with the administrative time I referred to earlier. Some techs do not have to worry about administrative work. Other have to spend considerable time on it. It all depends on each individual situation, and how much detailed paper work is required in each situation. Not to blow my own horn on this, but this is where a formula I devised might be better suited. Although the CAUT formula gives an overall idea of how many techs are needed, etc., a time factor formula can be much easier adapted to each individual person and situation. While I can record 30 minutes to do a tuning, you can adjust the formula to 90 minutes. But the formula as it is, should be taken as an average. If you are a slow worker, recognize that, and either make adjustments, or try to learn to work faster. If you are a fast worker, take some time off. Just my opinion. Wim</blockquote> </html>