More great points from Fred. Your justifications have to be realistic in order to gain traction with your requests. In the FileMaker version of the workload formula that I developed some years ago, I included an Annual Maintenance Budget Projection that Fred developed in conjunction with the Budgets portion of the Guidelines document. This formula never made it into the Guidelines document but, it can be another useful document to add to any justification for budget increases.
We had high hopes that NASM would approve our proposal. There was some support within the organization but alas............
Original Message:
Sent: 12-18-2024 18:51
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Crazy Workload Formula Results
My own take on the major usefulness of the workload formula is that filling it out helps you organize your thoughts about your inventory: Where should you place your priorities? What is the overall situation? How can you go about making gradual improvements?
While we tend to want to use it as a tool to show our administration how understaffed we are, it doesn't really have that much credibility in the overall context, where there are all kinds of demands for non-existent funding. For example, the non-tenure track lecturers and adjuncts (all of whom typically have doctorates) are paid starvation wages in most schools.
To make your case, as Don says, you have to make it concrete. What is the overall condition of your inventory? How old is it? What are the expectations versus available hours to meet that demand? It can help if you focus a fair bit of your resources on maybe a couple rehearsal instruments, that get used by lots of people. "This is what is possible, but doing this is at the cost of neglecting other instruments - unless we can add another staff member."
A little over 15 years ago, NASM was doing a major revision of its Standards Manual, on the basis of which it reviews degree-granting programs periodically and provides accreditation. We submitted a proposal for adding piano maintenance to that Manual. It was ignored. In direct communication with a couple members of its board, we were told that they are reluctant to make demands that are beyond the capacity of the schools.
I dug up what we submitted, and attach it, in case anyone is interested.
Original Message:
Sent: 12/18/2024 3:25:00 PM
From: Donald McKechnie
Subject: RE: Crazy Workload Formula Results
All good information given so far and I have a few points to add. You do have to be realistic in entering your parameters. Also, 60 pianos per tech at a school like Eastman is appropriate. However, with today's budget nightmares that are plaguing most schools, the appropriate number of techs simply will not fly. Try 80 per tech and see what happens. I had to go with 80 per tech when I was at Ithaca College. Any lower amount just would not fly.
Have you done a detailed report justifying the need for an increased number of techs? The workload formula is a great tool to use but more information will be needed by those who are receiving your findings. Below is a summary of topics you could use in your report. If you wish to see a full copy of my last report before I retired from IC, let me know and I will send you a copy.
Opening Statement
Synopsis
Inventory History
• Total piano and harpsichord inventory in JJWCM
• Increase in enrollment
• Increase of studio, classroom and concert rooms in the music building
• Practice rooms
Budget
• Cost for tuning and other work
• Cost for a full-time assistant piano technician staff position
• Budgeting and savings
• Fees
• Current budget
• Inventory replacement
Challenges
• Concert/Recitals
• Recording
• Summer and other programs/events
• Piano reconditioning
• Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning (HVAC)
Personnel Justification
• College and University Technicians Guidelines
• Workload
• Core responsibilities
• Job classification and salary
• Internship
Summation
• Attachments
• College and University Technicians Guidelines
• Numbers from Schools Across the Country
• Acceptable Humidity Range
------------------------------
[Don] [McKechnie,] [RPT]
[Piano Technician]
[dmckech@ithaca.edu]
[Home 607.277.7112]
Original Message:
Sent: 12-18-2024 11:04
From: Robert Wilkinson
Subject: Crazy Workload Formula Results
Thank you Fred, that explanation was very helpful. I realized also that we had set the rebuilding parameters at (.4) for our Steinway grands, but we do not do most of the belly work in house, so they really should have been at (1), so that lowered the number from 16 to 12. Also, the humidity control is terrible here since it is such an old building, which I am sure contributes quite a bit. Either way, it was a helpful picture in my meeting with our finance department.
------------------------------
Robert Wilkinson RPT
Rochester NY
(706) 945-4496
Original Message:
Sent: 12-17-2024 20:41
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Crazy Workload Formula Results
As Bill Shull pointed out, your choice of a base workload of 40 (ie, 40 pianos per tech), "conservatories and top performance situations with national recognition," set the starting point at 306/40 technicians, or 7.65 (~ 8).
The other factors multiply together to a little under .5 which, by inversion, more or less doubles the number of techs needed.
So you haven't done anything wrong. It becomes a matter of the accumulation of individual decisions for individual pianos. One reason for a 40 base workload has to do with expectations. Typically, such institutions tune/touch up for every recital, may touch up all piano faculty pianos at least weekly, and the like, together with an accelerated schedule of action parts replacement, etc., etc.
The workload formula is a best guess we came up with over 20 years ago. The idea was that we would modify it in response to feedback. We didn't get much, and most was positive (I haven't been involved for perhaps the last 15 years). If it is consistently yielding unreasonable results, it should be modified.
The logic behind the underlying numbers was to set the number 1.0 as an average at which level the workload formula would be accurate: average of conditions, usage, expectations, and the like, with the assumption that some pianos would take massive resources while others might be almost ignored.
In any case, the results can be most easily changed by changing the base workload number. I gather you would like to have five FTE employees. That would be in line with a 60 base workload if all the other factors multiplied to be close to 1.0.
The underlying question to ask is whether you are, indeed, able to keep up with things and maintain the desired level of results. How many tunings per year per piano would keep them at the desired level? How much regulation and prep would be needed on an ongoing basis? How far is parts replacement, restringing, major rebuilding backlogged? (If you contract out some of that sort of work, you should not include it in the budget for employees)
I hope that helps.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
http://fredsturm.net
www.artoftuning.com
"One's real life is so often the life that one does not lead" (Oscar Wilde)
Original Message:
Sent: 12/17/2024 10:07:00 AM
From: Robert Wilkinson
Subject: Crazy Workload Formula Results
Good Morning All,
I spent a pretty significant amount of time with my staff gathering data on our very large piano inventory to input into the workload formula, and I am thinking I must have done something wrong because the results don't make sense. It is saying we need 15 technicians haha... which I would love but obviously that's about 10 more than I could ever dream of having. We have 300+ pianos at a large conservatory, but still. I am a little upset because I was hoping to use this data in a meeting with administration but it looks ridiculous. Any ideas for what I might have done wrong?
Thanks,
------------------------------
Robert Wilkinson RPT
Rochester NY
(706) 945-4496
------------------------------