Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Paul Gray on July 27, 2014, 03:35:29 PM
-
Thinking about a few recent renovation projects and the commitment of the architects involved to honour the principles of the original designers, I got to thinking about just how much time might actually be spent attempting to educate the staff as to how things should be. I'm not suggesting that actually renovating courses isn't a big part of the picture but that renovation can only be maintained if the staff left behind are clear on the intent. With that in mind, maybe some architects and/or those that have experienced their services might be able to comment on their experiences.
Over to you.
-
I think I have given quite extensive Colt presentations to at least 10 green keeping staffs and greens committees in the last 5 years. In the end its mostly is spending a lot of time with the people who will make it work, be it the shapers, green keepers or club committees.
-
Seems like the architect has to have a lot of buy in at the club to even be able to make changes that honor original principles, so I feel like this is a bit of a chicken or the egg situation. You can only do this stuff at places where people are already open to it and wanting to go down that path.
-
There were many architects who were excellent at "educating" in the 50's ,60's, and 70's. ;) ;D :o ::) ::)
-
Some of it is education, and some is simply hand-holding. I have about five clubs right now that want me to come back and make visits this fall, even though our work on the Master Plans was largely done years ago and there are no pressing issues, architecturally, that I can see. This is one of the reasons I've gotten more frustrated with consulting work over time -- being asked to explain to new committees the same things I told the last one, and trying to talk them down from the idea that they should be "doing something".
It is also true that it's important for the superintendent to be on the same page if changes to mowing lines etc. are going to last ... but as we don't hire the superintendents and generally try to stay clear of club politics, we don't control this. There is more than one club where we consult where we'll never get everything as we visualize it under the current regime.
-
This is one of the reasons I've gotten more frustrated with consulting work over time -- being asked to explain to new committees the same things I told the last one, and trying to talk them down from the idea that they should be "doing something".
A useful procedure for future consulting trips: videotape the presentation and leave a copy of it with the club, for their own committees' future consultations.
-
Thinking about a few recent renovation projects and the commitment of the architectures involved to honour the principles of the original designers, I got to thinking about just how much time might actually be spent attempting to educate the staff as to how things should be. I'm not suggesting that actually renovating courses isn't a big part of the picture but that renovation can only be maintained if the staff left behind are clear on the intent. With that in mind, maybe some architects and/or those that have experienced their services might be able to comment on their experiences.
Over to you.
Paul,
It's an excellent point.
The retention of the "maintenance meld" is a critical element in the ongoing service of the course to the golfers that play it.
The architect's intent should be communicated to staff and membership to try to insure preservation of the playing values.
-
I think this is an important part of the equation.
Architects have done an average job at educating committee's in New Zealand. There has been too much ill-informed interference by committees (who are often too arrogant to listen to their hired architect). My childhood club is, unfortunately, a case in point.
-
Some of it is education, and some is simply hand-holding. I have about five clubs right now that want me to come back and make visits this fall, even though our work on the Master Plans was largely done years ago and there are no pressing issues, architecturally, that I can see. This is one of the reasons I've gotten more frustrated with consulting work over time -- being asked to explain to new committees the same things I told the last one, and trying to talk them down from the idea that they should be "doing something".
It is also true that it's important for the superintendent to be on the same page if changes to mowing lines etc. are going to last ... but as we don't hire the superintendents and generally try to stay clear of club politics, we don't control this. There is more than one club where we consult where we'll never get everything as we visualize it under the current regime.
No doubt this says a lot about why so many courses end up disfigured in the first place. It's the rare contractor who can have the integrity to tell a client asking for some work to be done that none is needed.
-
Education is critical. I would suggest that the architect who is truly concerned about his restoration being approved, and left in tact long after the work is done, should seek out the one or two club leaders who truly want to be educated. Take the time to educate them, perhaps share your passion, so they can be well-armed to deal with the membership and committees.
-
I learned early on in my consulting career that there two key things needed to get things done. First a good diagnosis of the problem, and second the right process to get the organisation to understand the problem themselves and how to solve it themselves.
Explained in a different way: the diagnosis is saying to the patient that smoking is bad for him and that it is causing his coughing. The process part is finding a way to actually get the patient to quit smoking.
Almost all famous consulting firms (McKinsey, BCG, Bain etc) are very good at the first and quite bad at the second.
It seems things are no different in golf course architecture when it comes to restoration/renovation work. There are quite a number of people who are very good at the diagnosis part, but not many at all who are good at, or even trying, the process part. Partly that might be due to lack of interest (see TD above), partly due to the lack of necessary skills, or maybe in most cases even both.
Unfortunately without the process bit very little will happen or change in the long term....
So for those of my colleagues interested I would suggest reading about process consulting as a first step, might be a good investment given that restoration/renovation work will be the mainstay for most architects for the foreseeable future.
http://www.amazon.com/Process-Consulting-Implement-Conclude-Successful/dp/1118426827 (http://www.amazon.com/Process-Consulting-Implement-Conclude-Successful/dp/1118426827)
-
Frank; while Tom doesn't need any help from me, an implication of your otherwise excellent post is somewhat unfair. As I read it, Tom's frustration (if that is the correct term) comes not from having to explain the goals of the project and the purpose of the individual changes as they relate to the goals. Nor does he appear to object to having to "sell" the concept to the club. Rather, it is the need to reeducate the club as its administration changes on an all too regular basis.
As one who has chaired/served on green committees for more than 20 years and who works as a volunteer/officer with a number of clubs in our association on similar issues, I can only confirm Tom's observation. At my own club, where we completed a plan 13 years ago, we constantly hear from new committee members that changes are needed because the course can be "better". Even with our architect on retainer and the presence of some wizened veterans such as myself, it is a continuing battle. I can understand the frustration. but of course, every business has its frustrations. One is fortunate if he can reject work for fear that it will bring too much aggravation.
-
Shel,
I am not trying to slag TD, he is one of the best golf architects who ever lived, period.
But I think he (and many other architects) can still become a lot better at the process part of things. And although tedious I think he should, because he wants his work and the restorations he has done to live. And as you rightfully state there is so much ignorance, entropy, out there trying to undue the great work, he and others have done and are doing.
The whole idea about process is not a one time thing you do, but rather is a long term thing. In GCA it is about dealing with the problem of new ignorants showing up all the time and finding an effective way for clubs to deal with it. Its not easy, you do not always win, but its important enough to try.
-
Frank:
Excellent breakdown on the process.
Wouldn't you agree that most clubs face,
A lack of or declining revenue? This is the diagnosis of most clubs problems. This is based on lack of play and/or declining membership.
This is the case of my club.
For the last year I have trying to convince the board that they do not have a very good product to sell. Even more bluntly, the course and clubhouse are tired. The members and board are finally coming to grips with this realization.
Now to your 2nd point, how do we make the product better without any funds? Its a vicious circle that many clubs face.
-
Gary,
I'm tempted to throw some answers your way but I'll leave it to the architects. All I will say is that setting a course up correctly is more an issue of understanding than an issue of money. You don't need to spent one extra penny to understand why your fairways might need widening and why time and money is being wasted cutting silly patterns into narrow fairways.
PS: Frank, thanks for mentioning the book. As someone that consults about process I've ordered a copy as it may just help me when next dealing with someone that I just can't get to understand why 1+1=2