News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tom Soileau

Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2005, 08:28:59 PM »
Tom S:

You are correct that I don't always get to stay on site as long as I want to, and that I am letting my associates have more input into the finished product as time goes on.  That's my choice, of course ... I would rather do the routing and the editing for 3-4 courses per year than shaping every last square inch of one course per year, but I've been able to make that choice because I'm confident that my associates are doing excellent work, sometimes even better work than I would have done myself.

Another key is that some of them are VERY fast as shapers ... so in the case of a project like St. Andrews Beach, all of the greens could be shaped in my presence, even though I was only there for two ten-day visits during construction.

It's interesting to hear the perspectives of different architects on this topic, and I hope we hear more.  

To get back to your original question, ABSOLUTELY the golf course contractor has an impact on the finished product, but my goal as a designer is not to have to rely on them for the quality of detail work, but to control that stuff myself.  

In the end, I have yet to meet a golf course contractor that really wanted to stay out there all weekend to get a green just right.  You can get them to do it if they consider you important and they want to work for you again, and occasionally you come across an individual working for the contractor that really wants to make the course as good as he possibly can ... but he's usually getting an earful from his supervisor to just get the damn thing finished so they can get out of there with some money in their pockets.  Since you are working for Jack you probably hear less resistance from the contractors than others have to deal with.

I am a great believer in the value of shaping work but I think that some people are mesmerized by the work of a certain shaper or two and do not realize how many talented guys there are out there ... I've got several on my payroll, so they can't be that scarce.  And every one of my guys would say that the finish work is just as important as the shaping to the final product; that's how we pick which contractors we'll talk to.



Tom,

I think it is great that you have been able to set up your firm in the way that you have.  I agree completely that the finish work is just important as the shaping.  Depending on the course and the shaping that was required or should I say, lack of shaping that is required, the finish work is probably more important.  

There are plenty of good shapers out there.  Just ask one :)  I have never met a shaper who didn't claim to be the best.  The difference I find is in the attitude and willingness to listen and learn.  Attitude has everything to do with the shapers I enjoy working with.  Guys who take the time to go back to the tee or landing area to look at what they have shaped to see how it sets up.  Guys who don't mind re-working an area to get it just right.  Guys who are just as good on a sand-pro floating greens as they are on a D-6.  Guys that don't think they know everything about golf course architecture and who fall in love with what they have shaped and resist wanting to change it.

Then you have the really good finish guys.  This is where I think you do the right thing in having your guys do all the finish work.  Having a contractor with a really good finish crew can make all the difference.  You can work with a contractor on one job and have a great experience and then work with the same contractor only with a different superintendent and finish crew and struggle all the way through.  I am working with a bunker/finish guy right now with Sema Golf that is the best I have ever worked with.  If I could put him in my back pocket and take him with me to every job, I would.  Maybe I will talk to Jack about putting him on our payroll :)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2005, 08:42:13 PM »
 "I have never met a shaper who didn't claim to be the best."

Tom,

I once hired a tractor guy who came to the job claiming to be "The second best tractor man in Omaha....."  He is still in the golf business, at least at times, and doing good work.  

I never did ask who was number one, and one person made a snide remark that it was about a thousand way tie for first.....
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Don_Mahaffey

Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2005, 12:57:46 AM »
I’m curious how you designers oversee a project. For instance, who takes responsibility for irrigation installation, design firm or contractor? Who signs off? I've experienced some very poor irrigation work and usually no one steps up to take responsibility. Is it the design firm, irrigation designer or owners responsibility that things get done right? Where does the buck stop?

Tom Soileau,
I followed Jack around when he opened Proghorn. He spoke in depth about the design characteristics of each and every hole. I was very impressed and I don't think he educated himself on the jet ride from FL. I don't know how much time he spent on the ground in OR, but he sure knew what was done and why it was done. One thing I took away from his words is he seems to draw motivation from classic courses and golden age architects. He mentioned many times about how the design of hole was inspired by a similar hole at a famous course. One hole I heard him mention more then once was the 10th at Riveria. Maybe it was all a sales pitch, if it was he's a damn good salesman.

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2005, 10:03:01 AM »
Part1

Tom S.

Let me break this down bit by bit.  This time I’m in no rush:

Before I start, let me say from I like your boss from what I know of him through the press during the past decades.  He has been a tremendous ambassador for golf, and we’re lucky to have someone like him as a spokesperson. In parallel, I think of him like I do Wayne Gretzky.  What if either sport, golf or ice hockey had a guy who couldn’t communicate?  Wasn’t a great sportsman and representative of the sport?  Both sports are richer for their participation, and both have elevated standards, but liking him doesn’t exempt him from the questions I’ve posed, just as it doesn’t exempt my family members from probing questions.

1.   I was just curious what you guys think about the impact of a good or bad contractor on the outcome and quality of a course.  

Instead of good or bad, I would use conscientious and not conscientious, experienced and inexperienced.  There are bad seeds everywhere in every walk of life, but I don’t think the vast majority of people are inherently bad or seek to do a bad job...not by a long shot.  I believe they all want to do a good job, or a great job, don’t want to waste time doing it, and in most instances require help to achieve this.  Dr. Deming nails this in his Red Bead Experiment.  In his simple example he proves that all the incentives of cash, or fear of God through screaming and threats, the use of banners or slogans and the like will not change the industrial output UNLESS there is a change in how management manages its people. This means teaching the workers and seeking to improve the product in every manner possible.  Dr. Deming implores managers to get out of the office and get amongst the workers.  He implores managers to lead.  

Now, in continental Europe there are few quality contractors.  That doesn’t mean those outside the recognized few cannot do the job, they can, but they require guidance.  I know this first hand…having walked builders through the process…builders who’s guys did not know a tee from a green, bunker from a fairway but were eager to learn and didn’t shy away from asking for assistance.  In working with such companies you have to help the builder spot who can do what. Some guys have a feel for shaping, other guys are great for building tees or building the layers for a green, tee or replacing topsoil.  Some guys can float a green (though it’s something I prefer to do), while others, no matter how much you explain, would wonder why they’re slowly driving around in circles with that wood thing that looks like a pallette on the back of the sand pro.


2. TS part2   "Nicklaus Design puts a site architect on each of Jack's signature courses to ensure the design intent is maintained.  Knowing all the little things I catch on a daily basis that would otherwise have been missed had I not been there makes me wonder what other architects who don't put someone onsite has to live with because it is too late or would cost to much to come back and fix."  

Dr. Deming’s principles at work.


3. TS Part 3   "I know many architects who draw a set of plans and turn them over and make the occasional site visit and just accept what has been built, good or bad.  Some contractors have quality shapers and finish crews and project managers who really care about the outcome of the course while others simply low bid to get the job and then try to change order the client to death and cut corners to make more money."  

Don’t such situations reflect an investor who just doesn’t quite understand what it takes to get quality?  If the investor is savvy, the extra cost of an on-site architect would or should prevent the above from happening.  It’s an insurance policy of sorts.  For their investment shouldn’t owners be aware of the very possible consequences of sub standard work, regardless of how “accurate” planning is?  On the one side, the architects vying for these jobs either did not explain the importance of guidance, or the investor ignored the advice and took a huge gamble.  As the GC News survey illustrates, not all projects will land qualified builders of the GCBAA kind.

Tom, with the projects your Boss has, and at one time he admitted to 78 (some years ago) at some point of construction, doesn’t he often just have a set of plans drawn and then simply turns them over to the associate?  Instances he does not visit the site at all?  
Now back to an assertion in my original post; why would this be solely a JN project if he does this and the associate is crafting and adjusting as he goes along?

Before you read the following and think this is simply a bash Jack attack…I’d like to reference you to a post where I defended your boss.  Also, read my stuff and you’ll see I’m merely being consistent.  Just because your boss is the greatest golfer to walk the planet, does not exempt him (in my view) from the same questions I posed in Paul Daley’s GA, A WW Perspective, Vol.1  

He, after all, has two arms, two legs and two eye balls like the rest of us. (exception…artificial hip).

The Columbus Dispatch ran a series of article about your boss in 1998, the following are excerpts from one of the series.  Of note is his input for the $950,000 and $800,000 projects.

In designing a golf course, details are everything
Behind the green: The business world of Jack Nicklaus

By Barnet D. Wolf and Ron Carter
Dispatch Business Reporters

May 26, 1998

ORLANDO, Fla.—…a white pickup truck…grinds to a dusty halt.  In the bed of the truck, Jack Nicklaus and members of his golf-course design and construction staffs stand peering over the cab.  “No, no, that’s not right,” Nicklaus growls. “This just won’t do.”

He is examining the future green on the fourth hole at Keene’s Pointe, …he senses something amiss…

Months earlier, Nicklaus designed an elevated green—to give golfers on the putting surface a clear view of the nearby lake, which would have been obscured by shrubbery.
Construction workers at the site, however, have ripped out the small trees....

Consulting with another designer in the truck, Nicklaus takes a pencil and begins sketching. Within 10 minutes, he redesigns the green and the surrounding area…“OK, that’s it,” he says. “Let’s move on.”

Although Nicklaus’ style seems abrupt, it’s really just the perfectionist in him coming through...

 “We can definitely look at it and within a couple of minutes determine (whether) this is a great site for a golf course,” Mistretta said during an interview several weeks after the visit to Keene’s Pointe.

Nobody in the world receives more to design a golf course than Jack Nicklaus. Here’s what the golfer’s design company, Nicklaus Design, charges:
$1.5 million—Jack Nicklaus design, plus four to six site visits.
A select few are done each year.
$950,000 -- Jack Nicklaus design, plus one grand-opening visit
$800,000 -- Jack Nicklaus design, no site visits
$600,000 -- Jack Nicklaus II design
$500,000 -- Steve Nicklaus or Gary Nicklaus design
$350,000 -- Golden Bear design, created by a design associate in the
company

” Nicklaus gets involved with a course design early and stays with it through completion. His fee—up to $1.5 million—usually is determined by the time he must spend on the project.

Once a course gets the go-ahead, Nicklaus typically walks the property. He then designs a course plan that includes strategic aspects, such as locations of sand bunkers and water hazards.  All that information, along with the topographical data, is melded into a composite drawing so the architects and engineers can work together on it.  The shapes of tee boxes, greens and fairways are refined.  At Golden Bear headquarters in North Palm Beach, Fla., the course takes greater form: Computer-aided design software creates photolike drawings of each hole.

… Most of the courses are built by Paragon Construction…  As the work at Keene’s Pointe attests, course changes continue during construction, which takes about 18 months. Computer and site plans can do only so much.

“You really need to take a look at it, to get a real feel of it,” Nicklaus said.
END

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2005, 10:03:34 AM »
Part 2

Now…

If he makes no visits on the Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects, how can he “get a real feel of it”?

Isn’t someone else doing that? Are they making design decisions in the field from getting a “real feel of it”?

5 visits for most architects I don’t think is enough frankly for the "perfection" in any architect to shine through.  I’m partial to Herbert Warren Wind’s “days, weeks and sometimes months” analogy and believe the “days” bit of that quote is artistic license on Mr. Wind’s part.  Now, your boss has certain tremendous advantages most other architects don’t have, that I’ll grant you, but on Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects, that advantage doesn’t exist, or is the article missing something, or am I missing something.

On tier 2 and tier 3 projects, does the associate have artistic license to make design changes in the field, or is he merely applying the paint to a paint-by-number kit?  If he does have license, why not include his name?  

Mike Y: Frankly, it doesn’t matter who signs the checks.  It’s who does the work.  If the boss does the general plan, and the associate crafts it in the field…shouldn’t historical record reflect this?  If not, as noted previously, then Hunter, Maxwell, Russell should be nixed from Mackenzie’s record.  Billy Bell…who’s he?  He was only on site watching mules crap the place full.

I doubt this will change anything because today’s business is highly commercial, but you never know...crazier things have happened.

If someone can make the case otherwise, I’m not so narrow that I cannot or would not change my mind, but so far I’ve never heard anyone make the case.

For me the Carrick example is instructive. Strange got credit for the course when he was hot, now that Carrick has a reputation, Strange has evolved out of the project (if I've got the story right).  What if Tom S. is theeee hot architect in 15 years.  Produces one course after the other that screams excellence and economy.  Would some developers want to say they had not just a Tier 2 or Tier 3 Nicklaus project but a Nicklaus & Tom S. project?  I say fine, but why not be accurate from the start?

Jeff: You can be sure I’ll be lifting that two green example for potential clients to read.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2005, 10:18:48 AM »
Tony,

Good to hear from you. Haven't seen you around here in a while.  You are lucky in Europe, BTW, that you can still be a hockey fan.  Are you enjoying watching the NHL players over there? I am content to watch junior hockey, and our Texas Tornado are defending their National Jr Championship, starting this month.

What do you expect your potential clients to take from my example of building the same green twice with different contractors?  Just curious.  
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2005, 03:37:42 PM »
The reason I like reading Tony's rare commentaries on GCA are that I have always felt Deming was one of the most important people of the 20th century.  Tony gets Deming, and while I have not seen Tony's work, I note that he has been very consistent in explaining what he does in his work regarding quality and craftsmanship. He seems to run his business like an institute, with training and consistency of purpose among his associate workers, and their improvement at the forefront of his decision making process.

I think that some of our design builders here in the states, many of whom chime in here on GCA.com, have a sort of Deming like process in their own design-build firms, even though they don't necessarily articulate the Deming 14 point process specifically when discussing what they are attempting to do.  C&C and Doak, from my observations, do indeed practice their crafts within the scope of the Deming models of craftsmanship-quality, training, and organizational consistency to the point that some of their workers have been interchangeable.

I think that with the big constructionoc., GC builders, one might get various crews and site project men who get the quality thing to varying degrees.  But, the overall company philosophy might not be steeped in purely quality and productivity principles as a consistent company wide "trained" workforce of individuals.  In a real Deming process, all the workers are trained in the entire system.  That simply can't be done with contractors working for various architect-design firms, whose lead or CEO figures, "don't get it", thus can't pass it on down the worker-craftsman line.

I can hear a few of the architects that are going to take on my views expressed here.  They are going to say they do get quality processes and practice it and demand it from contractors they engage.  But, until you really get deep into the Deming ideals, you don't, more than likely, get-it, IMHO.  It is darn near a system of dogma like a religion. :)
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2005, 06:48:34 PM »
Tony,
I still have to go with who signed the check or owns the company gets the credit.  However, I do understand what you are saying.  George Woodruff, once CEO of Coke, has said something like " there is nothing a man cannot accomplish if he doesn't worry who receives the credit".  
Do we see the different model of Fords or Chevys with the names of the designers?  No.... why? Because IMHO the company, architect or sculptor or painter is the Brand and the brand represents a certain quality or standard no matter who within the system designs it.  This may not be idealistic but I do think it realistic.
Mike
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2005, 07:58:37 AM »
Tony:

As you probably know, I'm working on a course with Mr. Nicklaus right now.  It's a co-design, so he knows he's supposed to let me do some of it, instead of making every last decision himself.  But when he does come to the site he wants to look at every last detail, and if we do something different than we'd talked about the time before he's not very happy and he sure wants to know why.

Certainly, if Jack spent twenty days on site per project instead of 7-10, he would have that much more input, but he's making all the decisions he wants to make ... he just doesn't have as much time to think about them as I take.  (One of the things I learned from Bill Coore was, if possible, not to make ANY decisions the first day I'm on site ... just to observe and then sleep on the right decision.)

I don't think Mr. Nicklaus does so many of those Tier 2 and 3 projects anyway; a lot of people want to pay him the full two million to have him directly involved, so why make it easy for the ones who don't to use his name?

« Last Edit: April 09, 2005, 08:11:25 AM by Tom_Doak »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2005, 08:10:58 AM »
As to your other assessment about who should get credit, though, I've got to side with Mike on that one.  

I've always been one to share credit on the projects we've done ... most people here know that Jim Urbina was the lead associate for Pacific Dunes.  But Jim would be the first to say that he had a lot of help, from Ken Nice and Brian Slawnik and Tony Russell and Bruce Hepner and Jeff Sutherland and a bunch of other guys, so where do you stop sharing the credit?  

The other factor is that all of the design associates I've ever had (especially the good ones) have occasionally tried to push the envelope too far, and built things that I thought were silly, and edited out of the finished course.  (It might get out of control, if those associates were trying to contribute something important enough to get public credit in your system.)  

For all I know, you might have thought those courses were even better if I'd left those features in the finished product; or you might have agreed with me.    But we'll never know, because the courses you see with my name on them are MY final edit, and not anyone else's.  And that's why the guy who signs the checks should have his name on the scorecard.

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2008, 10:19:37 AM »
But when he does come to the site he wants to look at every last detail, and if we do something different than we'd talked about the time before he's not very happy and he sure wants to know why.

he's making all the decisions he wants to make ... he just doesn't have as much time to think about them a...

I don't think Mr. Nicklaus does so many of those Tier 2 and 3 projects anyway; a lot of people want to pay him the full two million to have him directly involved, so why make it easy for the ones who don't to use his name?

Quote
Nicklaus Design has almost 100 golf courses currently under construction.
http://www.nicklaus.com/design/under_construction.php
Was surfing, remembered this thread and thought about the number of decisions required for 100 courses under construction. Add to those being built and the scads working their way through the design process. I think very few of his projects receive his quality time. How can they?

"When he does come to the site..."

To me it seems like they are all treated like the 2nd and 3rd tier projects. Even if it takes two years to build this group of 100, construction visits alone would be limited to 7.4 ... 3.7 per year. If he went at it 365 days per year.

All the decisions he wants to make? In the office and in the field? Does not compute.



Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Impact of the golf course contractor
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2008, 12:56:32 PM »
Tony:

I don't know how many of those 100 projects listed by Jack are "Nicklaus Design" courses where he doesn't make site visits at all.  Some of them, anyway.

I do believe Jack makes 5-7 site visits per project, including groundbreaking and opening day.  He did the same for Sebonack, partly to assure everyone (including the client) that he was giving the project his full attention, and not just leaving it to the other guy.  On one occasion, he had already made another site visit before he arrived in the afternoon -- the man's schedule is exhausting.  One of the things I learned from working together with him was that I would never want to be even 1/4 that busy.

Nevertheless, I am telling you that Jack firmly believes he is making all the decisions he ought to make, on every job he puts his name on.  He seemed just baffled that Jim Urbina and I wanted to take more time to make our decisions.  At one point, he likened it to hitting a golf shot -- you just size up the situation, make the best decision, and move on.  That is the way he thinks.  I don't agree with that method of operation, and I'm pretty sure you don't either, but Jack makes decisions for himself.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back