Work and Method Study

Grounds maintenance is an inherently seasonal activity with busy periods in the summer and less intense activity in the winter (Parker and Bryan, 1989). This reflects the natural growing period for landscape plantings. In many amenity landscapes, and certainly in golf courses, summer is dominated by the need for grass cutting. The downturn in work required in the winter period may necessitate reductions in staffing. Most golf courses now employ additional seasonal staff in the summer to cater for the higher workload and operate with a reduced full- time staff in the winter. The winter shortfall in routine maintenance work can also be used for

50 renovation and construction works (Parker and Bryan, 1989) and this is also frequently the case in golf courses. Unlike machines and automated equipment workers tend not to work at a uniform and constant pace. People vary considerably in the level and amount of work output they can achieve in a given period. They also usually need time off work and other rest and personal breaks. People are, however, more flexible than machines in responding to changing needs and variations in the environment. Thus in estimating workforce capacity and labour requirements a special set of management tools is required. Time and work measurement describes such a set of tools used by operations managers to estimate times taken to perform tasks and subsequently staffing requirements (Brown et al, 2001). The goals are to identify and eliminate wasted time and to set standard times for tasks. Without estimates of how long activities take it is not possible to allocate work to teams or individuals or to monitor how much it costs or how overall work schedules are progressing (Slack, Brandon-Jones and Johnston, 2013). That said, measuring work times it is not without difficulty. There will be variances including staff skill levels and ability, motivation and environmental conditions. Accepting the weak theoretical basis for work measurement its systematic approach offers a common currency in the evaluation and comparison of all types of work and in also optimising management inputs (Slack, Brandon-Jones and Johnston, 2013).It offers the best solution for quantifying labour inputs for a performance management framework.

Work study in landscape management can be divided into two components – method study and time studies (Parker and Bryan, 1989). Method study attempts to analyse operations, identify any unnecessary actions, impediments and arriving at a blueprint for the most efficient method of work. It is valuable in a range of grounds maintenance tasks such as deciding upon different types of machinery or in organizing work schedules. Time study is the exercise of establishing how long specific jobs take to complete and is a precursor to planning staffing levels and budgets. Job times, to be of real value though, should be based on the most efficient working method derived from method study (Parker and Bryan, 1989).

Many experienced managers may be able to estimate likely job times and staffing levels however these are unlikely to be accurate enough for detailed planning or contract pricing as there is too much subjectivity involved. Standard times can be formulated from work study to allow more accurate forecasting of staff requirement and loading for teams and individuals. In arriving at standard times one should still consider standards of maintenance required and frequency of operations (Parker and Bryan, 1989). The outcome from work study is the production of standard minute values (SMV’s) for specific jobs. Such SMV’s for similar operations can vary greatly between different organizations (Cobham, 1990) due to differences in:

51  The detailed nature of the job itself (e.g. size or shape of area)

 Tools and techniques used (e.g. machine used)

 Activities actually included (e.g. machinery checks or not)

Differences exist within published sources such as Spon’s Landscape External Works and those of The Institute of Groundsmanship for turf maintenance operations. There is also a distinct lack of standard minute values for most specific golf course maintenance operations in published literature. Cobham (1990) states that managers should be aware of using SMV’s and that they should formulate their own through onsite data collection and measurement. There is little evidence that this has or is happening in golf course management. Cobham (1990) encourages managers to do this as work measurement remains an invaluable management tool in determining workloads and labour requirements. Work study was used extensively in local authority landscape management as a means of managing labour efficiently.

Standard minute values do not provide the complete picture of labour requirements and adjustments will be required to cater for additional elements, termed allowances, in items such as:

 Lost time due to weather  Breakdowns

 Machinery maintenance  Travel time between sites  Personal duties and rest periods  Keeping records

 Contingencies and emergencies

 Receiving instructions and discussing operations with supervisors  Clearing up after completing operations

There are several factors to consider in arriving at whole staffing requirements and productive working hours to formulate final work schedules and budgets. Losses occur in a working week for a variety of reasons. Parker and Bryan (1989) state that in a 40-hour week there may be, typically, loss in productive hours of between 18 and 30% - meaning an actual productive week of 28 - 32.8 hours. Losses here are attributed to wet time, breakdowns, sickness,

52 machinery servicing, staff training, planned leave and bank holidays. As discussed already landscape maintenance is subject to variations in work demands due to seasonal changes which may be planned for with the use of temporary summer staff. Another common strategy, certainly in golf course management, is to have flexible working hours across seasonal changes (Parker and Bryan, 1989). Working hours and pay are annualised but staff work longer hours in summer in return for reduced hours in winter. For example, staff employed on a 39-hour week contract would work 42 hours for the 6 months of summer and 36 hours in the winter. Pay is fixed throughout the year.

In determining staff requirements, workloads and programmes it is necessary to cost such activities for their effective management. The annual budget is the essential first step in any system of financial management and control. In an example of a grounds maintenance budget

Parker and Bryan (1989) state that a typical expenditure breakdown would be:

Expenditure %

Employees (wages, salaries, training, allowances etc.) 63 Premises and Depots (maintenance, services, furniture, fittings, rent, loans etc.)

2.6

Supplies and services (equipment, consumables, PPE, contract services/fees)

11.4

Transport and machinery (running costs, renewals, etc.) 17.0 General office expenses (office staff, telephones post etc.) 6.0

Staff wages and machinery costs are clearly the most significant costs and this is true for golf course maintenance. This means that such resources require the most scrutiny and detailed analysis in operations management and are their costs are a key component of the management framework.