Time and Talent

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I agree this is a year that was tough to plan schedules in Texas. Its the fifth rainiest year on record, and we have a month to go.  We will certainly be top 3 all time.  Yeah, go Texas rains!

Aside from that, when you say taking more time allowed you to be more economical, have you figured in lost revenues from not being open this year, rather than next, assuming a normal rain year?

I see more and more of that type of thinking driving quicker construction.  In a remodel, for example, redoing the entire course might cost $3 Million.  Being down a year might cost $1.5 million in revenues, which equates to 33% of total project cost.  If you can pay a bit more to sod or accelerate construction, but cut down time to six or eight months, you cut revenue losses.  Often, the numbers associated with quick construction add up in what is a pretty narrow margin business these days.

I agree that if you use planning time before construction starts to minimize field changes, it can be quite economical.  Diddling around during construction is usually quite costly.  There is a saying I have found to be true - "A wasted week on the front end costs a month on the back end."

I have heard Tom Fazio call for using construction technology to build courses faster and faster, citing similar logic.

[Mark_Fine]

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  

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

My associates always want even longer to build the golf course and get it finished, but you are right that there is also a reality of "time is money" and even the best of clients are aware of that.

Regarding the value of "experience" vs. a talented crew, I think they are pretty much interchangeable in that the crew's experience is a big part of their talent.  As for whether Pacific Dunes would have been better if it had been my first course or my 13th, there's no question it is a better finished product because I had the right amount of experience to handle all the details ... whereas High Pointe might have been more original and creative in its design, but there are a lot of details which could have been improved upon with more experience and more talented help.

One of the luxuries I have with my crew is that some of them are so fast as shapers.  I can maximize my time by getting a couple of them to the site and just flying through and finishing a bunch of greens in a 3-4 day visit where I can direct them as they go.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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."

[Tom_Doak]

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?

[Matt_Ward]

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_Fine]

Tom D,
Not to respond for Rich since it was his question, but Pacific Dunes should be your opinion.  But you are still around and there is time for YOU to make it even better or is that not possible?

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Peter Pallotta]

"...I do believe that every piece of property has an ultimate design solution for its particular designer's taste..."

Tom D - thanks much for that; it's a very clear and concise answer to a question I've never even been able to articulate, let alone ask.
 
I asked earlier: "What (to me) elusive vision of Quality drives someone like Crump to take so much time?"

It just struck me that this 'vision of Quality' may have been elusive to Mr. Crump (I don't know for sure), but it doesn't seem to be elusive to Tom Fazio or Jack Nicklaus or Golf Digest, or to have been all that elusive to RTJ or Fownes or Joshua Crane or even to Macdonald and Raynor.

Was it any more elusive to Ross (at Pinehurst), or Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Fowler, Colt etc?

Is it elusive only when the architect chooses/is allowed/can afford to keep searching?

Peter

[Jerry Kluger]

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?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Yes you can have paralysis by analysis.  Sometimes, its like the old school test - first answer is best!

Peter,

The statement "...I do believe that every piece of property has an ultimate design solution for its particular designer's taste..." also conveys that there really isn't one solution after all!  It depends on the designer, and perhaps the designers time frame (i.e. experience, current state of mind, etc)

As to visions of design excellence there is always a balance.  If you clearly define it as, say perfect maintenance, its easier to achieve your vision of excellence.  At the same time, Raynor and Mac had perhaps too pat an idea of excellence with their oft used template holes.  Somewhere, we always have to ask ourselves if we can make that one change to improve something.  Shouldn't Raynor have asked if the Biaritz could be better if sideways, angled, deeper, shallower, etc?

[Dan Kelly]

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.

[wsmorrison]

Peter,

Crump clearly was going to take as long as necessary to come up with his final vision for Pine Valley.  But a certain factor in why it took so long time was because he was an amateur in every sense and was relying on other architects but quite a lot of on the job training.  The reason Merion took so long from the start of construction in 1911 to the finished version with no more greens being moved (1934) was a combination of factors.  The routing was limited by the dimensions of the land available.  They swapped some land that led to some terrific holes, basically 15-18 and added land that allowed holes 10-13, but it was as much the move towards a more natural style of greens and bunkers that also improved the course.  Mid-Surrey mounds were also removed.  Another early course, Lancaster (1920) retained Flynn as the consulting architect the remainder of his life and he made a lot of changes over time, much as a result of flooding, some of it increased due to real estate development.

[Rich Goodale]

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."

[Tom Huckaby]

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.

Also apologies for the interruption, but this gets brought up so often, I can't help myself.

One of the greatest fallacies of this site is that there ever WAS a Golden Age of GCA.com.  I've been participating for many years and the site is as good - or as bad - right now as it ever has been in my time.  And reading the threads from the year or so before I started here, well... if that's a Golden Age then I am Tiger Woods.

But yes, this thread is wonderful.  Now back to it.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Is it just me, or is the best way to guarantee that a machine destroys an area is to have a purposeful discussion instructing the operator to go nowhere near that area?

[Kirk Gill]

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.........

[Tom_Doak]

Kirk:

"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?"

Absolutely so, and that's one of the reasons all the courses at Bandon have turned out so well.  Mr. Keiser has fun with the process, and because it's fun, he doesn't worry so much about whether it is costing a little bit more to take his time and do something exceptional.  I think you will find that truth behind most of the great projects, whether it's Mr. Ross tinkering with Pinehurst or Mr. Wynn making his models of Shadow Creek.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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 Brightly]

 Where a builder may not risk deviating much from the original plan, my associates know that's what they are there for.

TD,

I'm really curious how much "deviation" occurs in the field as the associates are observing the work, versus suggesting changes to you before the shaping takes place. In other words, do the associates need your prior approval for all changes, or do they shape it first and then show you what they changed? The later seems risky!

[Tom_Doak]

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 Brightly]

I dont know which line I like better:

 "I just designed the (greens) from the seat of the bulldozer"

or

"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."

But it makes me wonder how you react when you do see something that you think is really bad, really different than what you wanted. Do you offer a polite "please change that" or something more colorful?

[TEPaul]

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.  

[Bill Brightly]

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.

Tom,

I though that attitude only prevailed on this website?