Jeff,
Regarding planning time vs. on-site during construction time, I think both are invaluable.  I’m a “plan your success” kind of guy but at the same time, I don’t believe in over-planning such as doing detailed construction drawings (especially for a restoration project).  A good shaper will laugh at them and frankly there is no substitute for time on site by the architect in these situations.  I remember early on where a client wanted detailed CAD drawings for a restoration project.  My recommendation to them was to save the money and spend it on the construction work itself.  I actually called guys like Tom Doak and Gil Hanse for their suggestions.  Tom may chime in here but he advised me that he generally wouldn’t take on a project if such drawings were required.  Hanse suggested I reluctantly do them (which we did) but Gil and I both agreed they wouldn’t be worth much value in the field.  

Tom D,
Was Nicklaus suggesting your extra time was not productive and/or that you just couldn’t make a decision?  Again I would expect that kind of comment from him as you can only keep the corporate jet waiting so long  

There is no clear answer here and never will be.  Furthermore, that ranking of importance by Jeff Bauer is just as debatable as any other list of criteria for things we rank.  No list is right but no list is wrong.  One thing for sure, however, most great golf courses evolve over time.  I wonder how Tom Doak will answer the question about Pacific Dunes, but my feeling is that if he says it is perfect now, he needs to spend some more time out there  

Mark,

Thanks for the reply. I think we are on similar pages. Regarding my ranking, I like the musings of an internet board and wrote those as such, noting both that I wasn't 100% sure and that for any different project, success could be had with a different combination.

I missed Tom's original points about JN and his decision making process.  Something tells me that there can be different thought processes that lead to great results.  That said, if you read about personality types, I think the more typical designer profile would actually tend towards those who make quick decisions.  

In some ways, the creative process does involve some brainstorming and intuitive decision making. I think that in many cases, the extra time is spent refining the basic idea and there is some point of diminishing returns.  I know I have done that excersise with the staff architects who present newly finished preliminary green plans - I simply ask if there is one thing they could change to make it better.  Usually, there is for at least three times.  At some point the answer is "Nah, I think we have taken this concept as far as we can go."

Jeff B, Tom D:

Do you ever have moments when you get paralysis by analysis?

In short -- can you take so much time that you're a bit gun shy in moving ahead with your original thinking?

I'd be curious if you cite any situations that might pertain to what I just mentioned.

Thanks ...

Mark:

Yes, it's possible that I will think of something that I would like to do to Pacific Dunes sometime in the future.  It hasn't happened yet, though, after playing it 75 times and watching a bunch of others play it and listening to a LOT of feedback.

I would also be cautious about changing anything because I have seen examples of other architects who changed their own work for the worse.

Matt:

Yes, I do have days when I am just stuck on a decision and gun shy about doing what my gut told me to do.  Part of that is that I have a bunch of associates weighing in, and I don't want to dismiss their ideas out of hand to pursue my own, at least until I am pretty sure that I'm right.  We can tear up stuff and move it around until we get it right, but it's hard to put something back exactly the way it was.

Tom D: If MacKenzie spent little time at ANGC and Jones was very busy, who was it that made the critical decisions during the construction?

Sorry for the interruption, but ...

Who says the Golden Age of GCA.com is dead and gone?

We now return you to an excellent discussion. Thank you, gentlemen.

Rich:

"I've asked you this question before, Tom, but do you really believe that, say, Pacific Dunes is so great now that it can't be improved over time, possibly by others? "

Sadly, I don't control what will happen in golf over the next 50 years.  But I do believe that every piece of property has an ultimate design solution for its particular designer's taste, and I believe that Pacific Dunes is one of those where we nailed the best solution.

Of course, other designers' solutions would have been different, and every golfer has his own opinion on what mix of different solutions would be the ideal.  And it's all a matter of opinion.  But in terms of what Pacific Dunes should be, whose opinion should count most in the end?  Isn't it mine?  And won't a bunch of subsequent architects be undermining that by imposing their own ideas, which I might not agree with?

Many thanks, Tom, for the honest and thoughtful answer.  I agree that your opinion should count most, now (although the ultimate control must remain with the owner, Mr. Keiser).  However, over time, will not your influence gradually wane, naturally, as future owners gain more influence and customer standards inevitably change?

This is what I was trying to get at in my take on the meaning of "time."

Jerry K:  One of the important things to understand about the Golden Age -- if there ever was one -- is that there were many fewer decisions that had to be made on site.  They did clearings and built greens and bunkers.  MacKenzie left some pretty detailed drawings for the greens; I would guess that Jones was around a little bit to give his input on how they needed to be finished.

One of the biggest differences between then and today is that there are so many more things which can go wrong today when there are big pieces of equipment working all across the site, and you've got to keep track of them all so nobody makes a mess you can't fix.

In reading Jeff's list of criteria, I was most struck by the second one listed, commitment to excellence. Such a thing is not necessarily incompatible to a "commitment to making a tidy profit," but I'm sure the two fight a bit with each other.

And for Crump, as an amateur designer, wasn't part of his time commitment and quality commitment related to how much fun he was having making the thing work? Was the pursuit of the experience of creating Pine Valley part of what led to the amount of commitment he made? It seems a fairly "un-businesslike" way of going about things. One hates to bring ugly commerce into a wonderful theoretical discussion such as this, but on some level doesn't time and talent both equal $$$ ?

And Peter, thanks for the T.S.

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach? I shall wear white flannel trousers and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me.........

Kirk,

Yes, committment to excellence cannot always be reconciled with profit given that its a time business.

As to fun, yes that is important as is synergy.  My best projects have come when I have a good personal relationship with the owner and we are all having some fun while working on the project.  It doesn't always have to be the Owner, it can be the Owners Rep or the Superintendent.  But the synergy develops when the key parties like each other and are on the same wavelength.

Bill:

They shape it first, unless they're uncertain how to proceed and they want to wait for me (but this is rare).  They are not afraid to try something, and not afraid to erase it and start over if it doesn't work out, which is equally important.

You should understand that we don't have precise plans for the greens when we start our shaping, anyway.  When I did my first 2-3 courses, I just designed them from the seat of the bulldozer and they turned out better than what I'd been thinking at the start of the day, so I don't want to handicap my guys with too much detail that isn't really well thought through.  Occasionally I will give them a sketch, sometimes detailed instructions, sometimes I ask them to come up with something that's harder to hold from the left side of the fairway, and sometimes I just turn them loose.  The most important thing is that the green fits the ground, and ties into the surrounds well, and as long as they don't mess that up we can play around with the details all we want in a half a day when I get back.

When we were working on St. Andrews Beach, the Australian regulations about workplace safety were really strict (who'd have thunk that?) and my associates were required to fill out forms about risk management before they did any shaping.  Brian Slawnik, the lead associate down there, wrote down as his biggest risk in operating equipment that he "might build something stupid, and Tom would fire me." So, all of the guys are aware of the risks, but they know I've got their backs.

Bill:

You should know something about the general attitude out in the field amongst those who do that stuff for a living and that is pretty much everybody thinks everybody else is stupid and all of them don't mind saying so. But the ones they really think are stupid and the ones they really don't mind saying so about is the ones who aren't there or who work for somebody else.