Actually Measuring the Performance of Greenkeeper and Greens Committee

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Ok - so our course is not in best condition at the moment, there is a good deal of concern and disappointment - and a special meeting of the members has been called to discuss. But how do we actually know if our course is in good condition or not? Something is going wrong...and all discussions end up in opinions and opinionated argument - get's nowhere.

I have been mulling over how you might apply aspects of Service Delivery Management to the presentation and general condition of a golf course. So if you'll just run with me for a bit.

The Customer is the membership
The Service is provision of a golf course to a defined set of Customer Requirements
Customer Requirements Definition and Service Acceptance is the responsibility of the Greens Committee
The Service Provider is the Head Greenkeeper supported by his team

OK so far

So lets start with the Customer Requirements.

What are the core areas of requirements? One set in order of priority could be:

• Greens (inc fringes)
• Bunkers
• Immediate surrounds (run-off areas etc) to greens
• Fairways
• First Cut Rough
• Tees
• Second Cut Rough
• Approaches to tees
• Footpaths

For each core area the Greens Committee, in consultation with Course Architect and other local clubs, defines a set of requirements that the Service Provider has to deliver. So for greens this could be:

For Main Playing Season (Easter to mid September):

• Green speed minimum of 10 on average when measured x times over a period of y weeks
• Greens cut in 'this way'
• Fringes free of damage (what this actually means t.b.a)
• etc

These are discussed with the Head Greenkeeper and agreement is reached on a set of requirements for the Greens that is reasonable and achievable - and timing and nature of measurements to assess performance against the requirements are greed.

Head Greenkeeper signs up to these for each core area (this is actually called a Service Level Agreement)

On a monthly basis the performance against the SLA for Greens etc is measured and reported to the Greens Committee. Where any SLA has been missed any factors that have caused this are reported by the Head Greenkeeper and discussed.

Performance against the SLAs is provided to the Membership (Customer) on a monthly basis plus reasons for missing any SLA.

The Head Greenkeeper is incentivised to hit SLAs with a bonus if SLAs are exceeded.

The Membership (through Suggestions Book etc) raises requests for change with the Greens Committee. In general these requests will be for changes outside of the Core Requirements.

Any changes to the course outside of the Core Requirements e.g. bunker removal, rebuild steps to a tee, cut down trees, are properly assessed in that the IMPACT of any such proposed change on delivery of Core Requirements is assessed by the Head Greenkeeper and presented to the Greens Committee - and either accepted or rejected. The Greens Committee therefore becomes accountable to the membership where a change is approved and impacts on delivery of an SLA and the Head Greenkeeper cannot be blamed - further the impact of the change is taken into consideration in the monthly measurement of performance against the SLAs.

Where the Head Greenkeeper indicates that a proposed change will have a significant impact on his performance against the SLAs this change is put to the membership for consideration.

Now...I am not for a moment suggesting that the above framework is necessary or fully appropriate to a Golf Club. However we all know the sort of discussions and arguments that go on in a club - the 'why are we doing that when...?' 'the greens are cr** - no they are not...' 'who is making these decisions?' sort of stuff.

Everything in a Golf Club seems to be opinion; and as far as accountability...There has to be a better more professional way of doing this. I'm sure that the championship courses must have some sort of structured approach to managing their course.

I'd be interested to hear any thought on the above and indeed where you know of any elements of such a framework being applied. And why wouldn't it work?

 

[GreiginFife]

Further to the service delivery aspect that you have outlined. Opinion can still have it's place in a business improvement cycle.
Many businesses focussed on delivering a pre-determined service to customers (so in this case a playable course, out side of non controllable elements) are now using Net Promoter Scoring (NPS).
This is a form of aggregated average feedback with a weighted scoring.
So you could aptly apply this to the criteria you outline above.
One thing in this field (pardon the pun) that I would be cautious of is the variation aspect to processes being defined (the "greens being cut 'this' way" for example) process control would probably be needed to sustain the Critical To Quality aspect. CTQ's can often be missed/underperformed where special cause variation plays too great a part and in something as varied as a golf course it's likely that special cause variation (something not occurring by input direct affect) would outweigh natural variation.

Just a thought.

 

[pokerjoke]

Measuring the performance of the head greenkeeper and his staff IMO is going to be very difficult.
Purely because they are against so many factors.

1.Weather,it so unpredictable in this country.
2.Time,they only have a certain amount of time in the day they will be able to get major work done.
They have to get the greens done before the course opens,otherwise its too dangerous.
3 Players,not repairing divots,pitchmarks,raking bunkers properly etc.
It wouldnt matter if a greenkeeper had the perfect green prepared or fairway
there will always be some person that moans,generally
the person who doesnt replace a divot,then screams blue murder when he lands in one,or has to putt
over an old pitchmark,when hes the one who doesnt repair his own.
4.Staff,a lot of clubs have actually reduced the greenkeeping staff due to economic climes.
Making the job harder.
I for one never moan about the greenkeepers,but i certainy moan about unraked bunkers,divots and pithmarks.
Of course you will always get the whinning prat who thinks he can do a better job because hes a know all.
I probably have gone off track of your op,but imo greenkeepers have got a tough job.

 

[North Mimms]

The other problem greenstaff have is that no player wants greenstaff anywhere near them when they are playing... at any time of day

 

[Hobbit]

Visitor's green fees.

A poor course gets fewer visitors than a good course. And if you have enough history, i.e. a monthly balance sheet going back x years, you can attribute opinion against peaks and troughs in green fees.

 

[Mungoscorner]

Measuring the performance of the head greenkeeper and his staff IMO is going to be very difficult.
Purely because they are against so many factors.

1.Weather,it so unpredictable in this country.
2.Time,they only have a certain amount of time in the day they will be able to get major work done.
They have to get the greens done before the course opens,otherwise its too dangerous.
3 Players,not repairing divots,pitchmarks,raking bunkers properly etc.
It wouldnt matter if a greenkeeper had the perfect green prepared or fairway
there will always be some person that moans,generally
the person who doesnt replace a divot,then screams blue murder when he lands in one,or has to putt
over an old pitchmark,when hes the one who doesnt repair his own.
4.Staff,a lot of clubs have actually reduced the greenkeeping staff due to economic climes.
Making the job harder.
I for one never moan about the greenkeepers,but i certainy moan about unraked bunkers,divots and pithmarks.
Of course you will always get the whinning prat who thinks he can do a better job because hes a know all.
I probably have gone off track of your op,but imo greenkeepers have got a tough job.

Excellent post.

 

[SocketRocket]

I'll get me swisher