Course Conditions Scorecard

[John Burnes]

I am on the Greens Committee for my club and I was wondering if anyone out there in a similar role or member, uses a scorecard to evaluate the condition of the golf course (ie greens, tees, fairweays, rough etc).  In my time around the game, all I've ever seen or heard are subjective evalautions ie "The course looks great" or "the tees need work." 

In an effort to help a super and communicate to the membership as a whole on how we're doing, a monthly scorecard seems to make sense.

What say you?
 

[Jason Topp]

John:

I suggest an objective set of criteria.  An example of the criteria used by Huntington Valley appears in the first part of this Scott Anderson Feature Interview.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/feature-interview-with-scott-anderson-part-i-august-2005/feature-interview-with-scott-anderson-part-ii-september-2005/

[Matt Bosela]

I played MPCC Shore a few weeks ago as a guest and after my round, the club asked me to fill out a form with my opinions on various aspects of the course conditioning using a 1-5 scale.

[C. Squier]

Sounds like you're giving the average member the ability to tell the super the grass isn't green enough.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I would not ask the membership to fill out a scorecard.  It can only discourage the super.  "The greens are too slow."  "The greens are too fast."  "The grass on the fairway is too long."  "The grass is too long and the fairways aren't firm enough." 
One of my clubs has a blog wwritten by our super that addresses some of the questions addressed by members and it read and well received.  Another publishes the full reprort of the yearly visit by the USGA's agronomist. 
A grading or poll of the members is like giving an exam to folks who have not studied the subject.

[John Burnes]

Let me try to focus a little more on my point.  I am not looking to get every single opinion on every aspect of the course.  Rather, I'm trying to establish certain kpi's that the greens committee and grounds mutually agree upon, report on this performance monthly, provide an appropriate action for each issue.  Then, this info is sent to all stakeholders.

As far as actual scores and evaluators, I think in a private club, it would make sense for the greens/golf committee to contribute.  At a public course, maybe it would be a group within the management or regulars.

The goal is simple, to provide a meaningful device to help guide and support the grounds team; not to discourage them.  If anything, the current way of doing business does just that. At a private club, members complain and eventually a super is removed without a chance for success and at a public course, players take their dollars else where.

Provide a timely and frequent evaluation to see how we're doing.  I say we because the effort is a partnership between the super's team and the head of greens (who was elected by the membership) and his team.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

It seems to me that a scheme that is properly thought through could be a valuable tool in measuring against agreed targets - performance appraisal. It presupposes that the greens committee is competent to set such targets and to test them. After all, the super's job may be on the line if something goes wrong. What safeguards are in place to protect the super and his job when something intervenes? - weather, disease, vandalism etc.

 

[Jeff Taylor]

"I'm trying to establish certain kpi's that the greens committee and grounds mutually agree upon"

Been there. Done that.
Expectations are great as long as they are based on realistic budgetary constraints. I recommend that all surveys be directed to the committee first. Then the committee can filter reasonable suggestions to the staff. In the absence of a blog from the superintendent, reporting to membership can be done jointly by committee and super, or just from the committee. Communication is important but not when it takes away from effectively managing the work.

[SL_Solow]

The Super at LaGrange  outside of Chicago has been doing this for years.  I believe only a limited group of members are given the rating materials.  the Super also rates the course daily.  He has a very specific set of standards which are discussed with his greens' committee and developed in conjunction with the budget.  He finds it to be a useful tool.  Clearly the key is matching expectations to budget to rating criteria.  If you are limiting the ratings to a select group of members, I am not certain that you need the written record; those who are really interested will report in.  But it appears to work at LaGrange.