<HTML>In a message dated 4/29/02 12:28:13 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">Read the list of those who endorsed the existing Guidelines document. I am working with all those people in mind. </BLOCKQUOTE> If the list only had a choice of one formula, of course they are going to endorse it. It's better than nothing. But have you ever considered that there might be another way to calculate a workload formula? Just because "you've always done it this way," doesn't mean there isn't another way. And just because I've only been at this for 9 months, doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">    I believe that what was developed and communicated this fall (in the Journal and on the web-site) represents an improvement over the initial formula, which was, I think, developed without adequate practical trial in varied situations. I also believe that we have not arrived at the final answer yet. I hope to develop, with the help of positive contributions from my colleagues, a formula that we can stand behind.    At this point, my impression is that you are working at cross-purposes, and that your comments are largely counter-productive. </BLOCKQUOTE> </XMP>If I just criticized the formula, without giving another solution, that would be counter productive. You asked for comments, so I gave them to you. I'm sorry they are not the comments you like. I read the guidelines when they were posted in the fall. I also spent 3 hours at a seminar discussing this thing with other technicians. I believe the comment was made by Richard, who's been a CAUT for 25 years, and Conrad, with 19 or 20 years, that our meeting was the first time more than two technicians spent more than an hour looking over the guidelines. And you know what, at the end of the three hours, we were all more confused than before we started. There were more questions than answers. Does that tell you something about the state of the guidelines? So on the way home, and for the next couple of days, I studied the formula, and read the guidelines. And as I told you before, the more I read them, the more confused I got. That's why I came up with another way to figure the formula. You said, "the workload has demonstrated its usefulness over many years in many situations. It then tries to account for variations in circumstances. The 40, 60, 80, 100 numbers are NOT arbitrary. They are based on real technicians working at real jobs over many, many years. We are not trying to justify the base workload by means of the formula. We are trying to adapt it to various circumstances." First of all, I don't like the innuendo that just because I've only been a CAUT for 9 months that I am not a "real technician working at real jobs."  I've been in this business for 25 years. I've also owned a store, and as many as 9 employees at one time. It is that experience that give me the credibility to make a suggestion for another way to figure a workload. If the guidelines have been used for many years, and by your own admission, were flawed, why are we still using them? Changing a few numbers here and there, isn't going to make the whole system better. It's just going to give a different slant to the same flawed problem. I think the biggest misconception is that the Base Workload of 40, 60, 80, or 100 pianos are NOT arbitrary numbers, because they are just the opposite. They are numbers created by us, telling administrators how many pianos we can take of. But, as Steve said, administrators do not know what we do. An administrator is not going to understand a workload of 60 to 80 pianos. Administrators will understand, however, that a technician needs to work 35 - 40 hours a week to maintain those instrument.   The multipliers do not reflect actual time spent on each piano, nor the number of technicians required to work on each piano. (which ever it means). The workload formula doesn't take into account rebuilt pianos. Neither is consideration given for "unproductive time," which, I am sure you will agree, is a considerable amount of time in most university settings. The Base Workload doesn't take into account institutions that have a little of all four categories, or at least two of them. The first "shortcoming" as printed in the Guidelines, is that "it is seen by many as an unrealistic ideal compared to the 'real world' conditions." Why is that? I think it is seen as such, because the workload formula doesn't reflect the actual TIME spent on taking care of x number of pianos. And that is the bottom line. And that has been my main argument. Again, Fred, don't look at my suggestion as a being counter productive. Look at it as another way to figure work load. Give it a chance. Do the math yourself. Let others do the math, and then determine whether my comments are counter productive or not. Wim</HTML>