<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; = charset=us-ascii"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2651.67"> <TITLE>RE: CAUT Guidelines</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> I  agree = whole-heartedly with what Ken is saying here. If the admin. and faculty = don't see what is possible with proper staffing levels-  i.e. a = group of excellent, well maintained instruments, and what is probable = without enough staffing - i.e. the poor pianos everyone complains = about, they will never be able to make the best decisions regarding = what it takes to keep the body of the piano inventory in the first = category. If all the pianos are just so-so there is little motivation = to change anything...complacency sets in. Its the "just the way = things have always been, so why do we need to change" syndrome. = Nobody wants to make waves unless they have to. Of course, there has = probably been an underpaid technician in the mix who has martyred him = or herself just to maintain the mediocre status-quo. It has been my = experience that it takes a near crisis for things to change in = institutions, especially State-operated ones. Take proper care of the = important instruments and let the others slide, or nothing will ever = change. The guidelines = should be the ideal. If you aim for the stars, you might at least hit = the moon instead of not even getting off the ground. When I started at = Miami University (Ohio) there were 150 or so pianos on the inventory I = was supposed to maintain as well as repair  band instruments. 30 - = 40 of these pianos were in the dorms and around campus, and were the = worst collection of junk you could imagine. I waved the guidelines = around and told them I wasn't going to do the dorms because the Music = School pianos would suffer. They (much to my surprise) rolled over and = said OK!  They never asked me to repair any band instruments = afterwards either. Plus, a local technician got the gig tuning in the = dorms. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eric Wolfley, = RPT Head Piano = Technician Cincinnati College = Conservatory of Music University of = Cincinnati ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <UL> -----Original Message----- From:   Ken Eschete [SMTP:k-eschete@nwu.edu] Sent:   Tuesday, April 04, 2000 6:21 PM To:     caut@ptg.org Subject:       = Re: CAUT Guidelines To All: Faced with the situation of having too = many pianos and not enough technical staff, there are two options: 1)  The technicians can try to = do the best they can to keep all the pianos going.  Like tuning an equal = temperment, they shave a little maintenance time off of each piano and hope that = nothing really sticks out.   2.) The other option is like = tuning a Pythagorian temperment, where no maintenance time is shaved off of the = more important pianos, and the effects of not having a large enough = staff are concentrated into a section of the inventory (the Wolf). Some of = the pianos are really, really good, and some are really, really, really = bad, making it quite clear why a larger staff is needed. Demonstrate what IS NOT getting done = due to a lack of staff so that everyone can HEAR the = difference.  Figure out how much NOT doing maintenance work is costing the = University.  (Example -- an old Steinway B in good playing condition is worth = say $20,000.00.  Once it is allowed to fall into un-playable condition, it = is only worth $7,000.00.  Not doing the work will cost the University = $13,000.00 in equity.  Doing the work with in-house staff will cost them about = $5,000.00 but that  will still raise the net equity value of the piano by = $8,000.00.  Then we can talk about replacing that Steinway, but don't = get me started..... The Steinway and CAUT Guidelines are = useful tools; but in the end, I think it's the money that talks.  This = is how I'm going to try it.  I'll let you all know if it works for me. Ken Eschete Northwestern University Evanston, Il To All- Rolf is on the right track. It = was with the persistence of an >Associate Dean and myself that = the Guidelines and a former, institutional >maintenance plan developed by = Steinway were used to get a third, full-time >position at Oberlin; and it = wasn't long after the appearance of the third >position that faculty and staff = realized how necessary the third position >was. > >Ken Sloane, Oberlin = Conservatory >=================== ========== >--On Sun, Apr 2, 2000 11:31 AM = -0400 "Rolf von Walthausen & Nancy Larson" ><pianos@traverse.net> = wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 Donald R = McKechnie <dmckech@ithaca.edu> wrote: >> >>>I have some thoughts that = might get the ball rolling on the formula issue. >One >>>of the criticisms' = administrators will have is the Base component. No >matter >>>how well the argument is = made on having 60 as the Base, they will see that >as >>>unrealistic. One solution = would be to change the base number. On a >computer >>>database, using the = formula, one can easily change to whatever Base you >want. >>>Going up to 100 is = pushing the limit in my opinion. I have done this with >the >>>inventory here at IC. The = results show 4 technicians at Base 60 and 2 at >>>Base100. What about the = remaining variables in the formula? Are they good >or >>>in need of change? >> >> I have been using the = Guidelines extensively (and successfully) with a >> number of institutions since = their adoption 10 years ago, and would not >> want to see us back away = from the recommended ratios.  I actually find >them >> quite realistic, functioning = at the very least as attention-grabbing >> starting points that can be = used to guide admistrators towards applying >the >> Workoad Formula to their own = specific situation.  What I like about the >> recommended ratios is that = they represent the ideal.  By going through the >> process of applying the = workload formula, both administrators and >> technicians can move towards = an understanding of the compromises that need >> to be made regarding = expectations for a given amount of allocated time and >> resources.  Staffing = levels at _greater than_ the recommended ratio of >> technicians to pianos will = result in a less-than-ideal maintenance >program, >> but at least a standard has = been established and compromises understood. >> >> >> The interesting thing about = the recently-created document published by >> Steinway (referred to by = Richard West in a previous post) is that if one >> applies their 'formula' to a = given inventory of instruments, the results >> are amazingly similar to the = recommended ratios found in the PTG >> Guidelines.  I find the = Steinway "Guidelines for Institutional Piano >> Service" affirm the = basic relevancy of the PTG "Guidelines for Effective >> Institutional Piano = Maintenance", and therefore can be used as supporting >> documentation. >> >>>In my quest to have an = assistant technician hired here at IC, I have used >the >>>Guidelines as part of my = justification. No success so far but I believe my >>>full argument does not = get in the hands of the powers that be. >> >> I know it has been said = before but persistence over the long haul seems to >> be the key to success with = using the Guidelines.  Cultivating supporters >> among faculty and staff and = finding/promoting the idea to the right >'powers >> that be' is crucial.  = It is often a multi-year process that consists of >> maintaining constant = dialogue with students, faculty, staff, >administration >> and board of trustees, and = setting smaller mid-point goals along the way. >> >>>Is it possible to add = some sort of generic template to the >>>Guidelines that will = bolster the effectiveness of the document? Any ideas >>>welcome. >> >> Ken Eschete's idea of using = charts and graphs sounds really good.  Perhaps >> something along these lines = could be incorporated into an appendix or >> supplement without having to = publish an entirely new document? >> >> Looking forward to hearing = more ideas. >> >> Rolf von Walthausen >> Interlochen Center for the = Arts >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Kenneth P. Eschete Northwestern University k-eschete@nwu.edu </UL> </BODY> </HTML>