Scheduling in Healthcare Settings and Play Time at Golf Course Discussion So I have two discussion. This is for CTA 8. I will upload another one later. you

Scheduling in Healthcare Settings and Play Time at Golf Course Discussion So I have two discussion. This is for CTA 8. I will upload another one later. you don’t need to write outline and citation. Golf Journal: The Real Causes of Slow Play –Those Slugs Ahead of You Are Annoying, but the
True Culprit Might Be Out of Their Hands
Newport, John Paul . Wall Street Journal , Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]13 July 2013:
A.10.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
[…]in both events the speed of play improved — by five minutes on average in the final round at the men’s Open,
compared with 2012, and by 10 minutes for the women.
FULL TEXT
When golfers hear the words “slow play,” their blood pressure spikes and images of dithering idiots leap to mind:
the Tour-pro wannabe who takes six full practice swings every time, the 25-handicapper who waits for the green to
clear on a par-five, 240 yards away, before dribbling his shot 50 yards.
But according to Bill Yates, a former industry efficiency expert whose main business now is consulting with golf
courses about speeding up the game, player behavior ranks only second on his list of slow play’s five major
causes. No. 1: course-management practices and policies. “Players can be blamed for a lot, yes, but if courses are
sending out too many players too fast, nobody has a chance,” he said.
In fact, he said, until you clear up the predictable bottlenecks that plague many courses, it is hard to identify the
real slow pokes. “Players have been bombarded for decades with information and tips about speeding up play, but
if that were the only problem, the industry wouldn’t be in the predicament it is today,” Yates said.
I encountered Yates at the U.S. Women’s Open two weeks ago at Sebonack Golf Club in Southampton, N.Y. He was
lurking inconspicuously on the back of the 12th tee, jotting down figures on a clipboard with the help of a clock
and three stopwatches. For every threesome that passed through, he noted its time of arrival; that time’s
difference from the predicted time it should have arrived; the time it had to wait to tee off, if any; and the time the
last player putted out.
Yates was doing this work as part of a major new research project by the U.S. Golf Association, whose multiyear
goal is to solve golf’s serious slow-play problem. “Five-hour-plus rounds of golf are incompatible with life in modern
society,” said USGA President Glen Nager in announcing the initiative last February.
Yates did similar data harvesting at the men’s U.S. Open at Merion earlier in June. “Championship play is a
different animal than recreational play,” Yates said. As a general rule, he said, expert players in tournaments,
deliberately challenged by difficult conditions, take twice as long on and around the greens as everyday players do.
“That’s the time championship players need to play championship golf,” he said, “but it’s a poor example for the
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 4
rest of us. We can copy the motions they go through, but we can’t come close to replicating the results.”
As a result of the work by Yates and others, the USGA initiated several new policies at its major tournaments this
year. It trained the referees that walk with each group to be more proactive when players fall behind. It clarified
when players on par-three greens should step aside and signal the players in the next group to hit their tee shots
(such call-ups were numerous in both Opens this year). And it made the criteria for when spectators could cross
fairways more rigorous. As a result, in both events the speed of play improved — by five minutes on average in the
final round at the men’s Open, compared with 2012, and by 10 minutes for the women.
The main goal of the USGA’s project, however, is to speed up recreational golf. Using new sources of data,
including real-time observations from courses around the country, the association’s research department is
scheduled to release what it calls “the first-ever dynamic model of pace of play” in August.
Many of the ideas that Yates and others have been preaching for years will be included. No. 3 on Yates’s list of
slow-play causes is player ability. As quickly as high-handicappers may try to scoot around the course, they take
more shots and require more time than better golfers do, especially when they play from tees too long for their
ability. No. 4 is the way courses are set up and maintained — the speed of the greens and depth of the rough, for
example.
No. 5 is a course’s architectural design. Backups often start on a course’s first par-three, Yates said. If tee times
are spaced at eight-minute intervals, but the first par-three takes an average of 10 minutes to play, a course has a
mess on its hands by the fourth or fifth group of the day. If the next hole is a par-five whose green some players try
to reach in two, you know you’re in for a long day.
“It’s a myth that every course can be played in four hours,” Yates said. One part of the USGA’s project is to tweak
the formula, first developed in the early 1990s, by which a course’s “time par” is determined. The formula uses
length, difficulty as measured by the slope rating, distances from greens to tees, cart policies and other factors.
Time pars for foursomes can range from much less than four hours to more than 4 1/2 hours.
Yates says the Old Course at St. Andrews in Scotland is the perfect design for pace of play: “That’s because it was
designed by golf itself over the centuries, not by man.” The first par-three is the eighth hole, preceded by four parfours, a par-five and two more par-fours.
Pebble Beach, on the other hand, has issues. The second hole is a reachable par-five, and the par-five sixth is
sandwiched by two par-threes. “No one would ever suggest changing the layout at Pebble Beach. It’s one of the
world’s great courses. But there are things you can do,” he said.
Several years ago, on the recommendation of Yates’s company, Pace Manager Systems, Pebble toughened up the
sixth hole to make it play a bit harder, and thus slower. “It’s counterintuitive, I know, but when players take longer
to play the sixth, they don’t back up as much on the seventh, and they come away feeling more satisfied with the
overall experience,” Yates said.
The key to golfer happiness, Yates believes, is the uninterrupted flow of a round, more than the absolute time it
takes. And that depends above all on staggering tee times at just the right interval for each course — in some cases
10 or 11 minutes, as opposed to a more common seven or eight minutes — and keeping precisely to that schedule.
“It’s a delicate balance,” Yates acknowledges. Courses naturally want to maximize revenue by pushing as many
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 4
paying golfers as possible onto the course, but they do so at peril of alienating their clientele. “It’s usually not the
time itself, but the experience of time that makes people mad,” Yates said. Many courses, including some run by
the big national course-management groups, get the balance right, but many more fail.
–Email John Paul at golfjournal@wsj.com.
Credit: By John Paul Newport
DETAILS
Subject:
Tournaments &championships; Sports rules; Golf courses; Golf; Etiquette
Location:
United States–US
Company / organization:
Name: US Golf Association; NAICS: 813990
Classification:
9190: United States; 8307: Arts, entertainment &recreation
Publication title:
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.
Pages:
A.10
Publication year:
2013
Publication date:
Jul 13, 2013
Section:
Sports
Publisher:
Dow Jones &Company Inc
Place of publication:
New York, N.Y.
Country of publication:
United States
Publication subject:
Business And Economics–Banking And Finance
ISSN:
00999660
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
Commentary
ProQuest document ID:
1399663054
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 4
Document URL:
http://search.proquest.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/docview/1399663054?accountid
=10361
Copyright:
(c) 2013 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Last updated:
2017-11-20
Database:
ABI/INFORM Collection,Global Newsstream
LINKS
Linking Service
Database copyright  2017 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 4 of 4
CTA 8: Scheduling Play Time at the Golf Course.
Link to a news item discusses golf course bottlenecks and delves into the question: How long
should it take to play a round of golf? the time it takes to play a round of golf depends on process
design and production scheduling. It is just a question of how good or bad your own game is.
Variability in player talent becomes a problem. A good player can finish his/her round quickly. But
for not so good player, it is going to take longer on the course.
News Item: The Real Causes of Slow Play_(at the Golf Course) (clicking this link will download the
article as a PDF file)
Write brief but well-thought out answers to the questions below:
1. Discuss the scheduling / sequencing tools discussed in the text be used to alleviate the
customer service (and revenue) problem at a golf course?
2. Can the concept of Drum-Buffer-Rope (in Theory of Constraints section) be applied to this
situation? Explain how.
Critical Thinking Rubric. (2)
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Identifies and
Summarizes
issue at hand
5.0 pts
Identifies not only
the basics of the
issue, but recognizes
nuances of the issue
4.0 pts
Identifies the main
issue and subsidiary,
embedded, or implicit
aspects of the issue
2.0 pts
Does not identify and
summarize the issue, is
confused or identifies a
different or inappropriate
issue
5.0 pts
Personal and
other salient
perspectives
5.0 pts
Addresses
and analyzes
4.0 pts
Identifies,
appropriately,
3.0 pts
Address a single
source or view of
2.0 pts
Fails to address even a
single source or view
Personal and
other salient
perspectives
and positions
5.0 pts
Addresses
and analyzes
salient
perspectives
from
experience
and
information
from outside
4.0 pts
Identifies,
appropriately,
one’s own
position
and/or other
salient
perspectives
on the issue
3.0 pts
Address a single
source or view of
the argument and
fails to clarify
presented position
relative to one’s
own and/or other
salient perspective
2.0 pts
Fails to address even a
single source or view
of the argument and
fails to clarify
presented position
relative to one’s own
and/or other salient
perspective
5.0 pts
sources.
Quality of
evaluation
and analysis
5.0 pts
Observes cause and effect and
addresses existing or potential
consequences. Clearly
distinguishes between fact,
opinion, and acknowledges
value judgments
4.0 pts
Examines the
evidence and source
of evidence,
questions its
accuracy, precision,
relevance, and
completeness
2.0 pts
Merely repeats
information
provided, taking it
as truth or denies
evidence without
adequate
justification
5.0 pts
4.0 pts
Conclusions,
implications,
and
5.0 pts
Objectively
reflects
upon own
assertions
Identifies and
discusses
conclusions,
implications, and
consequences
consequences
3.0 pts
Identifies and
discusses conclusions,
implications, and
consequences but only
superficially
2.0 pts
Fails to identify
conclusions,
implications, and
consequences of
the issue
5.0 pts
Total Points: 20.0

Purchase answer to see full
attachment