<HTML>In a message dated 4/18/02 12:14:24 PM Central Daylight Time, fssturm@unm.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Well, if all you do is tune, all you need to know is the number of tunings per piano. That's how a lot of contract situations work (maybe the majority of institutional situations). But if you regulate, voice, rebush keys, file hammers, brush knuckles, replace parts, etc, etc, then you need to account for that time as well. </BLOCKQUOTE> That is why I put the "setting" factor in there. The factors are examples. One could have a concert piano that needs 100 tunings per year, but very little additional work, could get a "setting" factor of 2. (Not a likely situation, but it could happen). By the same token, you could have a basket case type grand piano in a practice room that needs 26 tunings a year, and also a "setting" factor of 5, because it needs high level attention. I feel the formlua is a bridge between just saying an institution with 40 - 60 pianos needs one full time tech, and the complicated formula the committee deviced. If there is one thing I would like to see with workload formula is not so much the number of techs needed, but the number of hours per week/year, it takes to take of the pianos. As I mentioned, I think administrators are geared more towards a time factor, than just a number of techs needed. Although it comes out the same, it would be easier to say the job requires 45 hours per week, as opposed to needing 1.2 technicians to do the work. Thanks for your input. Wim </HTML>