The Impetus for the Survey

That was great!  Its been a little over a week and I had fantastic participation in my survey.  So much so that if I want to collect more responses I would have to upgrade to the "Professional" version of the software.  (FYI: I made use of a website that allows you to do small surveys without any fee.  The trade offs are numerous and include things like only allowing no more than 10 questions, allowing only a limited number of respondents, no ability to chart results, etc., etc.).
  
Now, as boring as this sounds, I think everyone needs a bit of back ground on what started this process of developing a maintenance standard.  First another quote regarding the development of a maintenance standard: 

"Golf course maintenance standards are guidelines that detail the manner in which a golf course is maintained on a daily basis. They are not instruction manuals for each cultural practice, or a list of job descriptions for employees, although these can be included. They are, however, formal documents that outline golf course maintenance goals and the necessary practices for meeting these goals. These plans can be very helpful in addressing budgetary concerns and customer expectations."

It's the last sentence that really got me going down this road. With both a shrinking budget and membership I needed a tool that could, hopefully, consider both those points while also aiding in giving members the best bang for the buck.  In the past, the bonus of having a large membership and the associated revenue was the freedom it offered us when making maintenance decisions.  Basically, decisions were made with an eye on always improving conditions with only a cursory glance at the cost (within reason, of course).  Now maintenance practices that appear to be the norm for KGC may not be feasible in the present environment.  One example is greens mowing.  Not that long ago we hand mowed all greens everyday from May 1st to Oct 1st.  Last year (2012) over that same time we frame we only walked 57% of the time.  The rest of the time we triplexed to save on wages.  I feel there is a substantial difference in the quality of cut when you compare a hand mowed green to a triplexed green with hand mowing giving a better cut.  That is especially true when you factor in the triplex unit and the style of cutting heads it has.  Next post I'll delve into the survey result.

Course Conditions

Another quick look around at some more greens and everything appears good.  There is only just over 10" of snow on most the front greens compared to 18 to 20" on the greens last year at this time (and that was before we got all the snow in March).  What does that mean?  Not much since we never really seem to get going before the 3rd week in April regardless of snow pack.

AGM and the Links I Promised

Follow this link USGA article to see the full article I kept referencing at the AGM.  Whether you'll get any more information I'm not sure but take look.  Another article I had with me is one from Penn state.  Follow this green speed link to read it.  It is a general outline of some of the common maintenance practices for affecting green speed.  Read that one also if you're interested but keep in mind that, as I referenced at the AGM (I think?), we have some challenges, hurdles, limitations, etc., etc. that influence the degree these practices can be implemented at KGC.  None of these challenges, hurdles, limitations, etc., etc. are insurmountable but at present the club doesn't necessarily have all the required resources to overcome these challenges, hurdles, limitations, etc., etc.

Don't forget these pictures:

2 Green Roots 

5 Green Roots

When we're dealing with this degree of variation (remember the more roots you have the better the turf can handle stress while little or no roots makes just keeping things alive a challenge) you have to gauge the maintenance practices to the weakest link.  

                    

Early Spring Update

I've begun to plough some cart paths so I have a way to get around and in the process I've checked the surfaces of some of the greens.  So far things still appear pretty good.  In some cases the snow level is as low as 9" with no obvious ice.  Other greens with more snow (14") have changed.  The surface ice visible a few weeks ago has now become sort of less "ice like" (?) and those greens themselves are mostly thawed.  We've been below seasonal norms the past couple weeks so I am glad we're not in a situation where we would have to remove ice; it just doesn't work very well and usually creates more problems.  The river forecasting centre has the snow pack around 97% of normal for this time of year which hopefully translate into a long sustained run off. 

When I am not ploughing snow I am prepping/painting the accessories (flag stick, garbage cans, blah, blah, blah) getting them ready for this season. Also, as part of preparations for the up coming season I sent out a survey to certain people.  If you received it please compete it (it's only 10 questions) as I am seeking your input.  I'll discuss the result in a post after the AGM in February.

Number Crunching - Hours Worked

During the winter season I spend a bit of time reviewing and planning.  In the following weeks I'll post small snippets about some things you may be interested in knowing. This week I'll post about the hours my staff works.  The following chart shows the total hours worked on the golf course since 2008 up until 2012 (the time frame is from April 1st to October 15th since this is typically the time when most hourly staff are employed): 

The trend is obvious with the take home message being we spending less time maintaining the course; about 2200 hours less since 2008.  The blip in 2010 is for two reasons:

1. This was the spring we did the cart path paving
2. This was also the year we had problems on #1 Green 

How do these hours relate to staffing numbers? Total staff maintaining the course (not including myself and the mechanic) was

• 2008: 17
• 2009: 17
• 2010: 17
• 2011: 16
• 2012: 14

Except for 2012 the staffing numbers are fairly similar.  But a closer look explains why the total hours spent working on the course are dropping.  In 2008 there was an assistant,  8 seasonal F/T, 4 seasonal P/T, and 4 students on staff for a total of 17.  In 2011 there was an assistant, 4 seasonal F/T, 8 seasonal P/T, and 3 P/T students also for a total of 17.  The biggest drive for the change in the staffing make-up was increasing wage costs.  A graph showing total wages from 2008 to 2011 would show a slight increasing trend over those years.  I guess the good news is 2012 reversed this trend with a decrease in wages of around 11%.  For the 2012 season two part time staff were bumped up to seasonal F/T and another seasonal F/T was hired (the increase in seasonal F/T staff was because we ran without an assistant superintendent this past season; an unfortunate trend for the foreseeable future) so the staff make up was 7 seasonal F/T, 5 seasonal P/T and 2 P/T students for total of 14.  It's not just the amount of staff that explains the declining hours.  Start and ending dates have also changed for some hourly staff.  They now start later and finish sooner in the season.

Lots of information manipulated in an effort to show the connection between the maintenance levels and available resources (people and time in this example) over the past few years.  Without the bodies and with less time the level of maintenance has to change; furthermore, the competitiveness of the market we're in makes change all the more important to keep us in operation.  I'll be interested to hear how other people interpret this information.