Remote Working from M&E

[Tim Gallant]

I read this article, and think this is a really interesting topic. Well done to Adam and the team at GCA for getting Mackenzie and Ebert to write this:


https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/remote-working-for-improved-sustainability


I'm in two minds about this at the moment. I am usually quite critical of M&E, but I applaud them for embracing this technology. In a post Covid world, it may become more prevalent where we are unable to travel to certain countries / regions for health reasons. Additionally, as the fight against climate change becomes more serious, there may be more and more rationale for not travelling when one doesn't need to.


I love that Mackenzie and Ebert are apparently not only trialling this new technology, but might actually be setting a trend within GCA that will have wide reaching ramifications. We always talk about what the next trends in GCA will be and this makes it seem like it might not be in relation to new design ideas, but on how courses are built / executed. These types of technologies (in theory), when taken to the extreme, can cut down on time, and cost of a project, and therefore, could this technology help passion projects and projects without big budgets get off the ground with more regularity?


But! I am also wary about what this means for the courses themselves. Almost every podcast, thread, and book that I've read from some of the modern masters talk about how there is no substitute for being onsite. Being able to see, not only what is being designed, but how it fits in with its surrounds seems almost impossible to do if you're not on site. I've trialled working with 3D cameras, and VR  headsets. They are quite something, but it certainly is not the same as RL. Also, you may not fully be able to take into account other architectural elements like wind (strength and direction), long/wide vistas to help create optical illusions, and so on.


The most concerning quote from the article was:


Most golfers may not realise that many golf course architects do not draw accurate plans and rely either on directing and approving designs on site, or by allowing their on-site personnel to effectively make the design during the shaping process. Our approach involves doing our thinking before construction starts on the ground and we have learnt to produce inspired designs on paper, which have worked for over the last 30 years. We have been told by contractors in many parts of the world that they rarely receive plans containing such detail.


Similar to the above, I am not sure creating too detailed of a plan (especially for a green) is such a good idea. It doesn't allow for changes in the field, which can be an improvement on a plan from getting to know the property and surrounds better with each day on site. I won't speak for them, but I believe Doak, C&C, Hepner and Urbina have all talked about the importance of being able to create in the field.


Now taking a step back, I feel what M&E are saying is simply that this can help reduce (but not eliminate) site visits. My guess is that there would still be visits required to sign-off on major shaping work, but this technology may be able to reduce travel by X%.


So what say everyone? Is this a breakthrough? Is this the beginning of the end of the second golden age where designers like Hanse, Doak and C&C advocated for time on site? Or is it a minor blip on the radar?

[Thomas Dai]

A little while ago I was pondering the different view of a potential course that Herbert Fowler would have got from riding the property atop a horse rather than by purely walking it, ie eye-line height.
On studying a very large and fascinating book recently arrived from Traverse City I recalled my Fowler thoughts and wondered about the potential for course and hole routings via drones flying at various heights 'flown' by architects themselves or close associates with automatic data transfer of outcomes into 3D or whatever format is most appropriate.
Maybe some potential benefits, and most likely many a downside too. Might even be less need for trampling through undergrowth being ever careful not to poke an eye out on a branch or tread near some angry wee or large beastie!
atb

[Clyde Johnson]

The most concerning quote from the article was:

Most golfers may not realise that many golf course architects do not draw accurate plans and rely either on directing and approving designs on site, or by allowing their on-site personnel to effectively make the design during the shaping process. Our approach involves doing our thinking before construction starts on the ground and we have learnt to produce inspired designs on paper, which have worked for over the last 30 years. We have been told by contractors in many parts of the world that they rarely receive plans containing such detail.

Honestly, I don't know any architect, operating in a way that allows themselves the freedom to develop their designs in the field, that hasn't thought a whole bunch about construction before committing to breaking ground. Being able to shape yourself as an architect, or giving a knowledgeable/passionate crew a little rope before editing, can be pretty efficient ways of making that pre-construction much better than what was crafted on paper. What designer wouldn't want that chance to make their work as good as possible...especially ones granted with the responsibility to work on some of the best and most significant courses in the world!?

[Tom_Doak]

The most concerning quote from the article was:

Most golfers may not realise that many golf course architects do not draw accurate plans and rely either on directing and approving designs on site, or by allowing their on-site personnel to effectively make the design during the shaping process. Our approach involves doing our thinking before construction starts on the ground and we have learnt to produce inspired designs on paper, which have worked for over the last 30 years. We have been told by contractors in many parts of the world that they rarely receive plans containing such detail.

Well, that's just what investment people call "talking your book".  I can say equally that I have not put many greens plans on paper for the last 20 years, and my courses have turned out very well in most people's eyes.


There is no substitute for spending time on site.  In theory, you can spend most of that time at the beginning, and then just stick to the plans.  That's efficient, but does it yield the best golf course??


The part I object to is the idea that any architect is better without input from others.  Indeed, it might be the other way around, as frequently I give the shapers a general idea and a lot of creative license, and then just edit their first try at things. 


Plan-drawers will say that's more work, but it could be LESS work -- it all depends on whether their drawing is really the most efficient design.  I believe that the guy on the machine can do it more efficiently, if he knows golf as well as he knows how to operate the machine -- because when you are pushing the dirt around yourself, you tend to find the solution that comes together easiest, while the design associate on paper does not worry about the time it takes for the guy to push the dirt.


By coincidence, someone sent a link this morning to an article in the Australian Turfgrass Management Journal about our recent project at The National -- it's a very detailed account of how we operated there.  No one interviewed me for it, so it's not me "talking my book."  The link is here:


https://issuu.com/agcsa/docs/atm_22.3_e-book-1


(I hope that works)

[Ben Stephens]

Hi Tim,




I read this on Golf Course Architecture online. Yes certain things will change in future not only in the golf course design but in other areas of design. Drones are also being used to survey buildings etc.


The advancement in technology such as 3D CAD modelling using BIM (Building information model) 3D printing and drones/robotics is advancing at speed these days.


Zoom meetings has cut the travel out of the equation eliminating 2 hour round trips for a 30 min meeting and certain elements can be shown on a shared screen. The quality of the connection will improve in future.


Have been exploring the 3D CAD modelling myself and which allows me to see the design in 3D on a computer screen to see if it works visually and VR in theory without having to visit the site too much and the ability to make tweaks on the the 3D BIM model with a touch of button and in future golf courses could be built by robots on diggers/shapers or large scaled 3D printers to follow the details with accuracy. I can see this happening in the next 20 or so years.


Who knows we may have an near exact copy of the Lido course using this approach or even a floating golf course - https://www.waterstudio.nl/projects/floating-golfcourse-maldives/


This means the hands on design approach to golf courses and buildings is likely to be reduced in future IMO.


Cheers
Ben

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


Honestly, you should be careful what you wish for.  These tools are not used to make things better.  They are used to monopolize an industry in the hands of a few big players. 


Today's young architects are lucky that Bill Coore wanted to be like Mr Dye and not Mr Jones, or most of you would not be able to aspire to anything higher than being his CAD monkey.


Also, keep in mind that when on screen technology really does get good enough to substitute for being there, many of the golfers will just play all the best courses virtually, and there will be no more demand for new physical courses.

[Robin_Hiseman]

A lot comes down to the quality of people you are able to work with. Tom D has a consistent crew who he can trust and the owners who hire Tom D know how he works and are fine with that. It is the ideal scenario to allow you to reduce the amount of time spent on the drawing board churning out technical drawings.


For the project i did in Morocco I had none of that back-up, so had to spend a lot of grunt time making sure that the plans were 'idiot-proof'. Our deal didn't give us enough time on site and we had an inexperienced contractor. That time on the drawing board paid dividends because so long as they stuck to what I had drawn, they were pretty close to what I wanted. However, don't let anyone persuade you that is how it should be, or is the best approach. It was a pretty miserable slog, stuck in the drawing office for months on end, agonising over minute detail that nobody else would appreciate. In the end, it served the desired purpose and the course turned out better than any other the Client had built before. It would have been even better had we had an experienced team on site I could have improvised with


This article sent a shiver down my spine. Whilst I can appreciate the virtues of reducing unnecessary travel for project meetings, the thought of drone technology replacing my ability to get down on my hands and knees in the dirt to perfect a green contour leaves me cold.

[Carl Rogers]

Is the next "logical" step to program a dozer  to read a CAD File and shape a hole similar to 3D printing?

[Tom_Doak]

Is the next "logical" step to program a dozer  to read a CAD File and shape a hole similar to 3D printing?

Supposedly such a technology has existed for more than ten years.  Its effectiveness is limited by two factors:


1.  Most importantly, can you really draw the hole exactly as you want it to look on site?


2.  What happens when you excavate an area of bad soil?  On a normal job, someone would find a place to bury that and exchange it for good dirt, or even redesign things on the fly to compensate.  A "programmed" dozer would just spread the bad dirt right over the green, or wherever it was supposed to fill.




I do not know what course is the best course built using such technology.  Whatever it is, it isn't in the top 100 lists.

[Tom_Doak]

This article sent a shiver down my spine. Whilst I can appreciate the virtues of reducing unnecessary travel for project meetings, the thought of drone technology replacing my ability to get down on my hands and knees in the dirt to perfect a green contour leaves me cold.

Ditto.  This past month I've been sitting through meetings going over plans with a fine tooth comb because of permitting issues, when a lot of the course is already laying on the ground and all the hoopla is about cart paths and bridges!


You're 100% right that I am lucky to be able to work as I do.  But it works that way because I am committed to staffing the project as necessary, and to being there as much as I need to be, to make sure the course comes out right.


In that light, can I ask a couple of questions about your Morocco job?


1.  How happy were YOU with the end product vs. what you might have done if you'd had more time or better shapers?  80%?  95%?


2.  I have heard architects for years say "if only I'd had $50,000 more in the shaping budget, the course could have turned out well," and I have never understood this.  Did the client put a line-item veto on shaping and nowhere else?  I mean, you never run out of money for cart paths after 15 holes, so how is it so easy to not have enough money to do the shaping right?


3.  How do you value "months" of office time for the drawing vs. another site visit for a few more days?

[Jaeger Kovich]

Imagine being hired to make adjustments to The Old Course or Pine Valley and saying you were just gonna send the drone and draw some 2 inch contours on an iPad instead of visiting ...


I’ll never have the chance to work at either of those courses, but I try treat all my clients and work as if they are.

[Brian Ross]

I agree with Tom, Clyde, and Jaeger that there is no substitute for being on site. I have been on site for 99 of the past 125 days (since March 1) and know for certain that my work will be better because of it. Without that commitment, several of my favorite features would have never been built as I couldn't have dreamt them up on paper given a million tries. Instead, they are products of the moment, created organically on the fly. Similarly, we've made a few fairly significant routing adjustments in the field after construction commenced. Imagine the time that would've been wasted had I spent days creating detailed grading plans for a green only for it to get moved fifty yards across a swale.

With regard to technology's role in the future of golf design, I could see planning meetings, presentations, and possibly even interviews happening more frequently via Zoom or some other remote means, but whenever the dust starts flying, I will be out there in it.

[Carl Rogers]

Is the next "logical" step to program a dozer  to read a CAD File and shape a hole similar to 3D printing?

Supposedly such a technology has existed for more than ten years.  Its effectiveness is limited by two factors:


1.  Most importantly, can you really draw the hole exactly as you want it to look on site?


2.  What happens when you excavate an area of bad soil?  On a normal job, someone would find a place to bury that and exchange it for good dirt, or even redesign things on the fly to compensate.  A "programmed" dozer would just spread the bad dirt right over the green, or wherever it was supposed to fill.

I do not know what course is the best course built using such technology.  Whatever it is, it isn't in the top 100 lists.

Tom, I did not say that the result would be desirable.  I am in the camp that says it will be a long time before Artificial Intelligence can make such subtle distinctions.

[Robin_Hiseman]

This article sent a shiver down my spine. Whilst I can appreciate the virtues of reducing unnecessary travel for project meetings, the thought of drone technology replacing my ability to get down on my hands and knees in the dirt to perfect a green contour leaves me cold.

Ditto.  This past month I've been sitting through meetings going over plans with a fine tooth comb because of permitting issues, when a lot of the course is already laying on the ground and all the hoopla is about cart paths and bridges!


You're 100% right that I am lucky to be able to work as I do.  But it works that way because I am committed to staffing the project as necessary, and to being there as much as I need to be, to make sure the course comes out right.


In that light, can I ask a couple of questions about your Morocco job?


1.  How happy were YOU with the end product vs. what you might have done if you'd had more time or better shapers?  80%?  95%?
Given the doubts I had about how it 'could' have gone, I have to say I'm delighted with how it turned out. I've been back a couple of times to play the course and am very proud of what we created. It would have been a few % better with talented, experienced shapers, but credit where it is due, I underestimated the skill and dedication of the Moroccan guys who were out there year on year. Once they got the grasp of what we were doing and could see how it was turning out, they really got into it. We developed a good relationship and the detailed drawings I'd done spoke for me when I wasn't there.


2.  I have heard architects for years say "if only I'd had $50,000 more in the shaping budget, the course could have turned out well," and I have never understood this.  Did the client put a line-item veto on shaping and nowhere else?  I mean, you never run out of money for cart paths after 15 holes, so how is it so easy to not have enough money to do the shaping right?
The irony is (and you couldn't have known this) that we've only built 15 of the 18-holes! The other three await the client resolving a land dispute (don't hold your breath). There was no line-item veto on shaping, but it was a fixed price contract, so the local Contractor had no margin on the shaping line item after it was was signed off. The shaping was done well though.

3.  How do you value "months" of office time for the drawing vs. another site visit for a few more days?

In this instance, the months of office time were essential. Without boring you with the details of the contract, we knew before the job started that we had a fixed number of site visits, of a fixed duration and had to cover our own travel expenses. It was the second of a two course deal and came with a fee discount that was not in our favour. The design preparation phase was fairly well recompensed, so we made good on that time to prepare sufficient detail to cover the fact we could not spend loads of time on site.  It wasn't a good deal and not one to repeat, but I reaped a generous dividend on site for the time I spent preparing. It was, ultimately, a rewarding project, though it wasn't the most pleasant of places to visit and was a very solitary experience. It's a good course, with memorable holes, but will never amount to anything commercial until they can finish it. Given the nature of the dispute and the fact that the our Qatari client has fallen out of favour with the King of Morocco, I can't see a way in which it will.

[Jon Wiggett]

'we have learnt to produce inspired designs on paper'

Its good to be the biggest thing but dangerous to believe you are it!!! I will say no more.

[Niall C]

The purpose of the essay is to plug their green credentials and the slant is that technology can be used instead of site visits, however in reading it it also occurred to me that the technology could also be used as well as site visits. I'd imagine that even the design in the dirt guys can't be on site 100% time and that the use of this technology could be a useful add on.


Just a thought.


Niall

[Lou_Duran]

'we have learnt to produce inspired designs on paper'

Its good to be the biggest thing but dangerous to believe you are it!!! I will say no more.

I would love to sit on a Doak pitch with a copy of his "book".


JW, it seems like you are saying a lot more than you are reasonably entitled to do.  If M & E see themselves as the "biggest thing" and "it", I've missed it.  To me they appear to be heading a firm which embraces the advantages of modern technology to improve their work.  They don't eschew progress or limit their toolbox for the sake of working exclusively "in the dirt".  You do know that these relatively new tools/applications of technology and the more traditional iteration of office and site work are not mutually exclusive, right?


The fixation on the # of site visits doesn't seem to recognize the Bell and Learning Curves- I suspect that there are some architects who can accomplish as much in three two-day visits than others who might spend 30 days on the site.  I am reminded of the advice that sometimes the first look is the best one.   


I play a course a couple of times each year where a contractor "misread" the location of a green site in the plans and built it between the architect's site visits, short changing a good par 5 by some 50+ yards and screwing up the angle and distance from the middle tee for the subsequent drivable par 4.  Regular drone feeds during construction might have prevented this error and significantly affected the reaction to the two affected holes, both considered to be the weakest on the course.

[Don Mahaffey]

I think Tom Doak nailed it with this quote

Plan-drawers will say that's more work, but it could be LESS work -- it all depends on whether their drawing is really the most efficient design.  I believe that the guy on the machine can do it more efficiently, if he knows golf as well as he knows how to operate the machine -- because when you are pushing the dirt around yourself, you tend to find the solution that comes together easiest, while the design associate on paper does not worry about the time it takes for the guy to push the dirt.

While there are certainly many macro items that require significant pre planning like mass ex and grading, irrigation storage, storm drainage and erosion control...there is no way, IMO, that a plan, drawn by hand or with the most advanced software, can match the nuance a Schneider, Slawnick, Iverson, and others (I've got a budding one on my staff who just passed the 10,000 hour mark) may add to an designer's general concept for a feature. 


My company continues to try and be as technically advanced as possible. We can import a CAD file and stake it on the ground to sub cm accuracy. We can map a constructed golf hole including all trees, slopes, paths, features and lay out the irrigation on the computer then import that data into a GPS and position the irrigation components to sub cm accuracy. But even that technically ability doesn't replace making sure valve boxes are tucked over a crease or not in a traffic area, or that shifting a head 2 feet puts it on a slope away from the view of the green. Maybe those things don't matter, but we think they do.


We are working on perfecting 3D printing so we can print a topo, but the more we look at that the more we realize it's best use will probably be before/after topos an architect may use to sell a project to a membership/client and that's really not our business model.
I guess an architect could design a green, print a 3D model, and send it to a builder, but a 2D plan is just as good for any experienced shaper, so is it really worth the expense, or is it all about PR?
 

[Kalen Braley]

This conversation somehow reminds me of this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkpWk8FJsys

[Tom_Doak]

The fixation on the # of site visits doesn't seem to recognize the Bell and Learning Curves- I suspect that there are some architects who can accomplish as much in three two-day visits than others who might spend 30 days on the site.  I am reminded of the advice that sometimes the first look is the best one.   


I play a course a couple of times each year where a contractor "misread" the location of a green site in the plans and built it between the architect's site visits, short changing a good par 5 by some 50+ yards and screwing up the angle and distance from the middle tee for the subsequent drivable par 4.  Regular drone feeds during construction might have prevented this error and significantly affected the reaction to the two affected holes, both considered to be the weakest on the course.

Lou:


I happen to agree with you on the first point.  A good designer and a talented crew can get a lot done in a short window . . . although, in general, I do not see the wisdom in spending more of your time getting TO the site than working once there, so a short visit for me is 3-4 days, not once every couple weeks.


Your last story seems to undermine your whole point, though.  Drone technology is not going to make up for a bad contractor doing stupid stuff, unless the drone is armed.  If the architect can't get back often enough to see where all of the greens are located, and can't or won't insist that the contractor fix a mistake like that when he does come back, there is no chance he's going to do it remotely.


Of course, if he had one or four guys working on the construction site, that's way better than a drone.

[Thomas Dai]

Amazing discussion in relation to history.
It’s not that long ago that MacKenzie took a month to travel from the U.K. to Australia and now here we are sending actual time messages.
What’s next?
Atb

[Lou_Duran]

Tom D,


As the story of the misplaced green was told to me, the architect officed nearby and visited during construction often.  He missed for a week or two, maybe travelling to another project, and when he returned the rough shaping of the green complex was mostly finished as were the tees for the next hole.  Whether it was an unintentional error on the part of the contractor or at the direction of the client, it was not known (or virtually certain).  But had the technology been available to monitor the work remotely, perhaps the architect could have interceded before work got too far on this low budget project. 


Holding everything else equal, I think that design and build is a superior approach, especially if the onsite guys are talented, experienced, and share the goals of their employer.  The use of technology in the front end and during construction is not incompatible at all with this approach.  The onsite guys can serve as more sets of eyes and communicate problems quickly that the technology created or failed to overcome.   

[Jon Wiggett]

'we have learnt to produce inspired designs on paper'

Its good to be the biggest thing but dangerous to believe you are it!!! I will say no more.

I would love to sit on a Doak pitch with a copy of his "book".


JW, it seems like you are saying a lot more than you are reasonably entitled to do.  If M & E see themselves as the "biggest thing" and "it", I've missed it.  To me they appear to be heading a firm which embraces the advantages of modern technology to improve their work.  They don't eschew progress or limit their toolbox for the sake of working exclusively "in the dirt".  You do know that these relatively new tools/applications of technology and the more traditional iteration of office and site work are not mutually exclusive, right?


The fixation on the # of site visits doesn't seem to recognize the Bell and Learning Curves- I suspect that there are some architects who can accomplish as much in three two-day visits than others who might spend 30 days on the site.  I am reminded of the advice that sometimes the first look is the best one.   


I play a course a couple of times each year where a contractor "misread" the location of a green site in the plans and built it between the architect's site visits, short changing a good par 5 by some 50+ yards and screwing up the angle and distance from the middle tee for the subsequent drivable par 4.  Regular drone feeds during construction might have prevented this error and significantly affected the reaction to the two affected holes, both considered to be the weakest on the course.

LD,


 


 

[David Davis]

Tim,


Thanks for posting this question. It's interesting indeed.


After reading my first question was the context and left me wondering if this didn't come about in regards to the nature of M&E's mainstay of business which is restoration work.


So my question to the architects is whether and how much of a difference it would make if this is restoration vs renovation vs new build or does your option stay the same for all 3.


Could you get away with this method much easier if you, for example working in Japan and renovating Hirono, you know the crew doing the work is very precise if provided exact maps of the work and you are trying to restore something almost to the exact place it was 100 years ago?

[Jaeger Kovich]

Tim,


Thanks for posting this question. It's interesting indeed.


After reading my first question was the context and left me wondering if this didn't come about in regards to the nature of M&E's mainstay of business which is restoration work.


So my question to the architects is whether and how much of a difference it would make if this is restoration vs renovation vs new build or does your option stay the same for all 3.


Could you get away with this method much easier if you, for example working in Japan and renovating Hirono, you know the crew doing the work is very precise if provided exact maps of the work and you are trying to restore something almost to the exact place it was 100 years ago?

I’d hope Hirono would have been smart enough to hire people willing to do whatever it takes and who pride themselves on going to the Nth degree because their course is worth it.


You travel as much as anyone I know and you love it. Would you want to hire someone who was gonna moan about travel time? (It’s not like they were flying Spirit) Experiencing all the different cultures and places is often the best part of golf too.

I don’t think the worlds 200 golf course architects legitimately contribute to the worlds carbon footprint. Air travel is a significant factor in golf’s economy. Golf will be in a way different place if nobody wants to take trips going forward.