[Nathan Gingrich]

Is there a format for a successful project where members/owners feel involved without negatively impacting the outcome? I began by having our subcommittee establish macro goals for the project and we are entering the phase where drawings are being finalized and I want to keep them on track. I know that this a general question on a very variable topic but any help would be appreciated.

[Mark_Fine]

Nathan,
The simple answer is YES but it is not easy to explain in type.  I presume you are talking about an existing golf course.  Part of the secret is informing vs involving but that needs more explanation. 
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Nathan:


From my perspective, the ideal balance is this:


The client [members, or owner] provides their mission statement for the project.
The architect proposes the work he thinks should be done.
The client approves the scope of work, with or without some edits that they discuss with the architect.


From that point on, it's game time, and the members shouldn't be involved any more, apart from watching us work and perhaps asking innocent questions.  You don't want to see a coach on the field during a game.  If it's a big project, there would be periodic updates from the architect to the client as to progress.


On new projects, most owners want to be involved more than this, and the architect pretty much has to let them ... but if the owner starts trying to micromanage the design, the same way that homeowners try to redesign their dream house for an architect, it seldom turns out well.  Dick Youngscap, an architect by trade, was the gold standard in that department.  He was on site nearly every day during the construction of Sand Hills, but he knew better than to keep interrupting the work.

[Nathan Gingrich]

Thanks for the responses. The project we are trying to get going in a renovation with few significant changes. We started out very high level and our architect submitted what I felt to be decent and reasonable plans to the committee today. Controlling the edits to a reasonable point is more of the issue. It's almost as if accepting one suggestion paves the way for more and unless the architect is assertive it gets out of control quickly.

[Mike_Young]

Nathan,

Can I assume you are in charge of the project?  Does your architect know you are discussing this on this site? 

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I was thinking the same thing which is why I was vague with my answer.  I will say that a "sub committee" that represents a microcosm of the full membership is very helpful. 
Mark

[Nathan Gingrich]

I would be the superintendent on the project. The meeting setting was in fact a subcommittee format and I am merely a superintendent going through this process for the first time at my first course solo trying[size=78%] to use the experience present in this discussion board to lead my club to the best possible result. If I have stepped out of bounds at some point I apologize.[/size]

[Mike_Young]

Mark,
Agree.

Nathan,
Good luck but as a club employee it is probably best to not discuss here....cheers..

[Don Mahaffey]

Nathan,
While I respect Mike and his input, if you are just trying to learn more so your club gets good value, keep asking questions.  Way too many think they know way to much to ask questions and listen to experience. Tom's answer was helpful and very good advice for any club undergoing improvements.
My contribution would be to stress the need for good project communication and as the Supt you'll be right in the middle of it. Keep everyone informed and never be afraid to ask anyone hired by your club to keep you informed of progress, challenges, schedules, expenses, and all of that.  Asking for information should never be treated like an intrusion.
best of luck with your project.

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I agree with you as far as searching for info.  My concern would be if his architect was not a fan of this site or took wrongly and went to his board saying such.  He can learn a lot here but IMHO he needs to be careful with the perception from his club or board...

[Don Mahaffey]

Golf Course Architects are an insecure group

[Mike_Young]

yep

[Tom_Doak]

Controlling the edits to a reasonable point is more of the issue. It's almost as if accepting one suggestion paves the way for more and unless the architect is assertive it gets out of control quickly.

Nathan:


When I said "edits" I meant the real definition of that word ... i.e., can you explain why you want to move the fairway bunker on the left side of hole #11 ?  We don't see why that's the right way to go, we may not want to do that.


Independent suggestions from the committee are not "edits" they are "rewrites" and they do put an architect in an awkward position.  The client can say "no" to the architect when they don't agree, but ideally they would not put the architect in the position of having to say "no" to them.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Good luck Nathan
You can let your architect know you are seeking input from this group - per Mike's good suggestion.
If your committee suggests rewrites to a bunker or similar, it may help to explain that any changes impact the entire course not just the hole where the edit is taking place.
Cheers
 

[Kevin_Reilly]

Nathan, at this stage of the project, your subcommittee should feel entitled to ask questions of the architect, and hopefully he can answer those questions.  After all, each member of the committee might be asked the same questions by other members in the grill or elsewhere and they should be prepared to answer them.  If there are substantive changes being discussed, spend the time to vet them thoroughly with the architect during this stage of the project.  Hopefully your architect is not put off by that sort of discussion, and ideally that discussion with the architect will pay off down the road with 1) a more fully-baked plan for the course and 2) a subcommittee that is better prepared to discuss the merits of the project with the membership at large (or the green committee at large). 

An experienced architect should be able to deftly/smoothly handle well-intended "suggestions" from your subcommittee members. 

[Thomas Dai]

I was once told a story, maybe in jest, about a project that was going nowhere fast, delayed by politics and bickering and squabbles. Everyone and his dog wanted input.


The suggestion was made that a draw be held and that 9 members names would be pulled out of the hat (it was about a 9 hole extension to an existing 9-hole course). Each of the 9 'lucky' members would then work with the architect on one particular hole and there would be no input from anyone else. Worked fine for 8 of the new holes apparently, although some of the folks who were 'lucky' in the draw suddenly found themselves with a few 'new friends'. On the other hole the husband of the lady who 'won' one of the 9 draw holes 'dabbled' and a few issues resulted. The new-9 got built though.


Atb

[Adam Lawrence]

 “Tarrant enquired what I thought about his idea that twenty intending residents should be invited each to lay out a hole! To this I replied I thought eighteen might prove a better number, but why not consult a good golf architect and get the job done properly. Out came his note-book. Had he heard me right? Did I say golf architect? Would I kindly give the name of one? ‘Of course’ I said, ‘Harry Colt’, and thus the famous St George’s Hill course was born. “ [Charles Ambrose in Golf Illustrated]

[Matt Dawson]

Adam

Shrewd chap, that Ambrose fella... 

[Mark_Fine]

Nathan,
The easy part of this whole process is doing the actual construction work.  The hard part (and I will contest for existing courses this part is much harder than for new courses) is reaching agreement on what work to do! 

There are sooo many factors in renovation/restoration/redesign projects and it requires close interaction between the club and the architect.  Some architects have the time and patience for it, some don't.  We all wish it was as simple as the club stating what they want and then the architect proposing what they should do and then off you go.  The process is much more complicated in almost all cases.  One thing is for sure, the superintendent needs to be in the middle of it.  Good luck!

[Jeff_Brauer]

What's interesting about this whole give and take process is the variety of approaches by architects, and the reactions of every client.

Just recently, I have heard of architects dismissed. One for being too rigid, having somehow told the members it was his way or the highway.  The other was dismissed for giving in far too much to the clients ideas, willing to do most anything.

I was also recently involved as an outside architect, when a faction of a club used a 13 year old article I had written in Golf Course News to challenge the architects propositions, which were widely approved by the rest of the club, but the battle raged on, including me half way across the country.

My guess is the architect has to read the client, and then deliver approximately the amount of firmness to his ideas as possible.  There is no template, apparently.  Ideally, clients should set the mission, approve the plans with minimal changes, etc., as TD suggests. 

If they have selected the right architect for their club culture, that shouldn't be a huge problem.  So, perhaps the problems started back in the interview phase in those cases.

[Peter Pallotta]

If I was an architect, I think I'd propose a plan that contained one nearly bad idea - not so bad that the committee might think me incompetent, but like a sore thumb obvious enough that it would draw the attention of all the eager editors in the group and thus give them a chance for input. And after they gave me their input, I'd take a long pause, my face frozen in thought until a eureka moment, and I'd say "You know, I hadn't thought of that -- but you're absolutely right. Thank you!"

[Joe Hancock]

That's called "the softball". Every once in a while you lob one to the client....or the architect, or whomever you're trying to persuade without showboating. Oft used tactic.

[JMEvensky]

If I was an architect, I think I'd propose a plan that contained one nearly bad idea - not so bad that the committee might think me incompetent, but like a sore thumb obvious enough that it would draw the attention of all the eager editors in the group and thus give them a chance for input. And after they gave me their input, I'd take a long pause, my face frozen in thought until a eureka moment, and I'd say "You know, I hadn't thought of that -- but you're absolutely right. Thank you!"

This presupposes Boards/Green Committees are sophisticated enough to spot the bad idea.That's not always the case.Some might even keep the bad idea and punt the rest.

[Peter Pallotta]

See - I should stick to being naive and romantic and leading with my chin. When I try to be 'clever' and 'sophisticated' I apparently land only on what is common, clichéd and counterproductive!
A man really does need to know his limitations. Mine include not being able to sell air conditioning even in Florida...

[Joe Hancock]

See - I should stick to being naive and romantic and leading with my chin. When I try to be 'clever' and 'sophisticated' I apparently land only on what is common, clichéd and counterproductive!
A man really does need to know his limitations. Mine include not being able to sell air conditioning even in Florida...

See how it was you who came to that conclusion, on your very own? ("Softball" tactic worked to perfection!)

The thing is, Peter, that when the softball was lobbed, it was with the respect of knowing a "Babe Ruth" was on the receiving end!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()