Operations Performance

Slack, Brandon-Jones and Johnston (2013) and Cockerham and Van Dam (1992) identify five key objectives in managing operations performance, quality, speed, dependability, flexibility and cost, all of which can be related to golf green management. Quality is achieving consistent conformance to customer requirements and is fundamental to customer satisfaction. Slack, Brandon-Jones and Johnston (2013) also confirm that quality can mean fewer mistakes, cost reductions and better services and products. Dury (1997) and Cockerham and Van Dam (1992) discuss the issue of quality in respect to sports turf surfaces and the difficulties in measuring and quantifying quality for such. Dury (1997) maintains that there has always be variance in levels and standards of provision for sports surfaces together with variable expectations from site users. In golf greens measures of surface playing performance are the most frequently used criteria in determining quality. Speed is concerned with the period of time

43 between customers requesting and receiving services or products. Fast response is both desirable for customers and enhances movement of materials and information in operations processes (Slack, Brandon-Jones and Johnston, 2013). Players expect greens ready for play at all times and often operations are conducted to facilitate minimum disruption to throughput of play. Dependability is important in maintaining customer satisfaction (Slack, Brandon- Jones and Johnston, 2013) and is heavily influenced by management decisions including use of staff and machinery (Cockerham and Van Dam, 1992). It can be measured by such factors as number of complaints and downtime in operations. Players require greens that are available for play all-year-round and also give consistent performance. Operations with high internal dependability are more effective than those which are not (Slack, Brandon-Jones and Johnston, 2013). Flexibility is about operations managers being able to make changes to schedules, programmes and techniques in response to changing requirements and environments (Cockerham and Van Dam, 1992). It is also important that playing conditions, including course set-up accommodate players of different ability. Operations flexibility can assist in developing new products and services in wider variety, volumes as well as making cost savings (Slack, Brandon-Jones and Johnston, 2013). Cost is always an important objective in operations management even if the organization is not competing with others on product or service price (Slack, Brandon-Jones and Johnston, 2013), which is not the norm in golf. Cost has become an increasingly important driver in golf course operations and decision making.

Measurement of costs and values are important management activities which have long preoccupied economists and accountants (Cobham, 1990). Cobham (1990) discusses the concept of value in landscape management and suggests that the value of a commodity is measured by the price people are prepared to pay for it, even, if like amenity landscape it contains elements which are intangible. Parker and Bryan (1989) broadly concur with this view and also recognise that value for money is difficult to define in precise terms and frequently a subjective criterion affected by people’s personal tastes or attitudes. Cobham (1990) identifies three aspects of value: Direct Use Value (DUV), Option Value (OV) and Existence Value (EV).

DUV is derived from the amenity in terms of its use for leisure and tourism activity and that ascribed for wildlife or environmental value. On a golf course, participation measured in rounds played can be measured to arrive at such a value. OV is where people consider the amenity worth conserving even if they are not direct users. Cobham (1990) considers this a real source of value as it can translate into people willing to pay to maintain the resource. Finally, EV relates to the value people attach to knowing an amenity exists and is there for others to enjoy. In golf course management comparison can be made for both OV and EV in situations such

44 as resort golf where property values often are aligned to adjacent golf courses. Cobham (1990) states that the sum of these three values gives a total economic value (TEV) for an amenity. Parker and Bryan (1989) propose that in the absence of any established framework it is frequently easier to base management decisions on cost alone and assume that low cost is the only desirable objective as outputs or benefits are often difficult to define in precise terms. Both Parker and Bryan (1990) and Dury (1997) again, discuss the issues in achieving value for money in the management of surfaces for sport. In maintaining sports surfaces it is relatively straightforward to measure operations inputs and ascertain costs for the user but complications arise from customer expectations – there is a massive difference in standards required for a local golf club and one hosting The Open. It is incumbent on managers to make customers aware of what standards can be achieved with available resources for that facility (Dury, 1997). All operations decisions should reflect the interests of stakeholder groups (Slack, Brandon-Jones and Johnston, 2013). In determining maintenance requirements ownership values for facilities must be recognised and understood (Cockerham and Van Dam ,1992).The owner is the controlling agent in deciding goals and objectives both aesthetic and athletic from which maintenance activities need to be decided. The function of the facility or surface is also key in establishing required inputs and maintenance practices, roadside verges are of low quality with comparatively low input whilst golf greens have very high inputs and quality requirements. This intensity of maintenance will impact on costs for the organization. More naturalistic and informal areas, (golf roughs) will be lower cost whilst more formal (golf greens) and man-made more expensive (Parker and Bryan, 1989).

Cobham (1990) presents a more complex picture for costs in managing costs for amenity landscape areas, which again, are relevant in the golf course sector. Cobham proposes the concept of True Social Costs (TSC) which is comprised of Direct Costs (DC), External Costs (EC) and User Costs (UC). DC are those associated with managing the facility including both variable and fixed costs. EC are those indirect costs arising from such effects as environmental damaged from pollution or the diminution of wildlife habitats. Often such costs are intangible and defy measurement. UC are those from use and exploitation of the facility or amenity. Too many rounds of golf or play in inappropriate conditions will result in damage requiring additional resource input and therefore cost to correct. Whilst user and external costs may be relevant to overall golf club management golf course managers are only responsible for costs of maintenance works and so only direct costs will be included in the management framework.

45