<HTML>In a message dated 4/20/02 5:22:19 PM !!!First Boot!!!, fssturm@unm.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I can see the potential use for an "intermediate" or "alternative" way of assessing work needs. I think such a thing would be especially useful for contract situations, particularly small schools. But I agree with Jeff Tanner that something along the lines of what Richard West posted a while back (I think it was sort of aimed at fraternities and the like in his case) would be a better starting point. It had a sense of scheduled regular maintenance - how often to tighten screws, to regulate, to file hammers, etc, along with regular tuning - with approximate time for each. It's the sort of thing you could adapt to any number of circumstances, including other institutions like churches.    Certainly if full time or part time university techs wanted to use it instead of the current formula, that would be fine, too. But for a lot of us, I really don't think it _would_ be all that useful, simply because of the way reconditioning/rebuilding procedures are integrated into the workload, and the number of "touch-up" operations (walk through and grab the offending unisons, 5 minutes per piano, type of thing). Not to mention administrative details, paperwork, communications, etc. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico </BLOCKQUOTE> At first, when you mentioned Richard's formula, I didn't know how that would apply to what we are doing. But your follow up post made it clear. Obviously that is not what we are talking about. Please understand that I don't think there is anything wrong with the formula the committee has come up with. I think it serve a vital purpose, especially when it comes down to needing a detailed evaluation of all the pianos. It is a bit confusing, and as was pointed out by Richard, a few wording improvements make it even better. But I still think for general purposes, and for "quick and easy" guidelines, my formula, (number 2), should be seriously considered as an alternative. And I would especially like to see it used when we send the workload information to all the music departments at all the colleges and universities, if that is our eventual goal. Wim </HTML>