Data Analysis and Decision Modelling

This study material discusses the importance of understanding different constraints in building a golf course and recommends the most suitable model for construction. It covers topics such as golf course criterions, business models, and conclusion and recommendation.

Running head: DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Data analysis and Decision Modelling
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Authors Note:

1
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Executive summary:
An organization when enters into a project looks to consider each and every facets associated
with such project to optimize the utilization of resources to achieve maximum amount of return
form such project. In this case Cunningham Holding Limited is looking to build a golf course in
one of its resort to attract more customers to the resort. The golf course should be of specific
parameters to comply with the international standards of golf course. A detailed discussion here
shows the importance of understanding the implications of different constraints within which the
organization has to build the golf course to recommend the most suitable model for the
construction of the golf course.

2
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Contents
Executive summary:........................................................................................................................1
Introduction:....................................................................................................................................3
Golf course criterions:.....................................................................................................................3
Business models:.............................................................................................................................5
Conclusion and recommendation:.................................................................................................12
References:....................................................................................................................................13

3
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Introduction:
Cunningham Holdings Limited have $20 million to build a golf course with all international
facilities. The objective of the company is to develop an international standard golf course with a
clubhouse facility. In order to develop the best possible golf course with the available resources
the management must consider different models with different parameters of golf course. A clear
understanding of each and every element of the golf course is essential to the construction of the
golf course. A detailed specification of different models are enumerated below.
Golf course criterions:
A clear picture of the different criterions to be fulfilled by the golf course is essential to
successful construction of international standard golf course for the company. The following
table shows the required criterions which must be fulfilled by the golf course (Bañuls, López,
Turoff & Tejedor, 2017).
Details Measurement criterions
Par 70 to 72 in total
Holes 18 holes exactly
Par Minimum Maximum
Straight par 5 1 2
Dogleg par 5 1 2

4
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Straight par 4 4
14 in total
Dogleg par 4 4
Long par 3 1
4 in total
Short par 3 1
Total acres must be 36 hectares 42 hectares
The above are different yardsticks and measurements for different elements of the golf course.
While constructing the golf course the management should ensure that all the yardsticks and
measurements are included in the golf course. The total pars, holes and other measurements must
be fulfilled. In addition the golf course shall be prepared by keeping in mind the enjoyment index
of different elements. It is because the company is looking to construct a golf course which will
give maximum enjoyment and benefits to the golfers. The following enjoyment index shall also
be considered by the management (Budimir, 2016).
Enjoyment index and building cost of different par
Golfing hole Par Hole size (in hectares) Enjoyment index Cost of building ($)

5
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Straight par 5 5 3 2 1,000,000.00
Dogleg par 5 5 3.5 1.5 1,500,000.00
Straight par 4 4 2 1.5 750,000.00
Dogleg par 4 4 2.5 2 900,000.00
Long per 3 3 1 1.75 600,000.00
Short par 3 3 0.75 2.25 650,000.00
Business models:
After considering the above measurements and yardsticks the following models have been
developed. Out of the following models the best suitable option shall be selected to achieve the
organizational objective of the company.
Standard clubhouse model:
Clubhouse model (Standard)
Details Amount ($) Amount ($) Enjoymen
t
Individual par Total
par
Estimated cost 3,500,000.00 3
Straight par 5 2 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 4 5 10

6
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Dogleg par 5 2 1,500,000.00 3,000,000.00 3 5 10
Straight par 4 5 750,000.00 3,750,000.00 7.5 4 20
Dogleg par 4 5 900,000.00 4,500,000.00 10 4 20
Long par 3 2 600,000.00 1,200,000.00 3.5 3 6
Short par 3 2 650,000.00 1,300,000.00 4.5 3 6
Total 1
8
5,400,000.00 19,250,000.00 35.5 72
The company by constructing standard clubhouse in the golf course and as per the above
elements will be able to complete the construction of the golf course within the budget of $20
million. The total cost under above model is expected to be $19.25 million thus, the company
will end up saving $0.75 million from the allocated budget for the golf course. The enjoyment
index under above model is 35.5 points (Czyzewski & McGraw, 2018).
Exclusive clubhouse model 1:
Clubhouse model (Exclusive 1)
Details Amount ($) Amount ($) Enjoymen
t
Individual
par
Total
par

7
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Estimated cost (reduction by
a 5%)
5,700,000.
00
4
Straight par 5 1 1,000,000.
00
1,000,000.
00
2 5 5
Dogleg par 5 1 1,500,000.
00
1,500,000.
00
1.5 5 5
Straight par 4 10 750,000.
00
7,500,000.
00
15 4 40
Dogleg par 4 2 900,000.
00
1,800,000.
00
4 4 8
Long par 3 2 600,000.
00
1,200,000.
00
3.5 3 6
Short par 3 2 650,000.
00
1,300,000.
00
4.5 3 6
Total 18 5,400,000.
00
20,000,000.
00
34.5 70
After the standard clubhouse model the company will consider exclusive clubhouse model as
desired by the shareholders of the company. However, it is visible from the above model that the

8
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
company will have to reduce the size of the clubhouse as the cost otherwise is exceeding the
budgeted cost of $20 million. Though it has been said that the company will allocate additional
funds if necessary to complete the construction however, in this case that leverage has not been
taken in this model (Johnson, Dyke, Hodgson, Murray & Kopp, 2012).
It is visible from the above table that compared to the standard clubhouse model, i.e. the first
model the company will not benefited from the above model. This is clear from the fact that not
only the Company will end up exhausting the entire budget of $20 million to build the golf
course but despite that the enjoyment index only expected to be stand at 34.5, i.e. 1 less than the
previous model (Joslin & Müller, 2015).
Hence, this mode shall be rejected without any further consideration.
Exclusive clubhouse model 2:
Clubhouse model (Exclusive 2)
Details Amount ($) Amount ($) Enjoymen
t
Individual par Total
par
Estimated cost 6,000,000.00 4
Straight par 5 1 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2 5 5
Dogleg par 5 1 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1.5 5 5
Straight par 4 10 750,000.00 7,500,000.00 15 4 40
Dogleg par 4 2 900,000.00 1,800,000.00 4 4 8

9
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Long par 3 2 600,000.00 1,200,000.00 3.5 3 6
Short par 3 2 650,000.00 1,300,000.00 4.5 3 6
Total 18 5,400,000.00 20,300,000.00 34.5 70
In exclusive clubhouse model 2 the company has decided to use the yardsticks and
measurements as mentioned in exclusive clubhouse 2 model except that the company will not
reduce the size of the club house to keep the total cost within the budget of the company. Instead
the company will arrange additional $300,000 to finance the extra cost necessary to build the
golf course. However, again the golf course to be built at a cost of $20.30 million with above
yardsticks and measurements will not be beneficial to the company as the total enjoyment point
is expected to be stand at 34.5 even under exclusive clubhouse model 2 (Kolodenkova, 2017).
Hence, the above model shall also be rejected without any further though as the enjoyment point
in standard clubhouse model is still higher despite saving $0.75 million from the allocated
budget for construction of the golf course.
Exclusive clubhouse model 3:
Clubhouse model (Exclusive 3)
Details Amount ($) Amount ($) Enjoyment Individual par Total
par

10
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Estimated cost 6,000,000.00 4
Straight par 5 1 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2 5 5
Dogleg par 5 1 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1.5 5 5
Straight par 4 6 750,000.00 4,500,000.00 9 4 24
Dogleg par 4 6 900,000.00 5,400,000.00 12 4 24
Long par 3 2 600,000.00 1,200,000.00 3.5 3 6
Short par 3 2 650,000.00 1,300,000.00 4.5 3 6
Total 18 5,400,000.00 20,900,000.00 36.5 70
Exclusive clubhouse model 3 shows that the golf course will be able to provide 36.5 points in
enjoyment index if the company follows the above design and pattern to build the new golf
course. The only negative aspect in the above model is however, the excess amount of $0.90
million. Thus, out of the all four models mentioned here till now the highest amount of customer
satisfaction shall be provided to the golfers in the above model. Hence, it is certainly desirable to
construct the golf course by following above model and design ("An Adopted Business Model
Driven Framework Based Analysis Over SOA", 2015).
Exclusive clubhouse model 4:
Clubhouse model (Exclusive 4)

11
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Details Amount ($) Amount ($) Enjoyment Individual
par
Total
par
Estimated cost
(Reducing size)
6,000,000.0
0
4
Straight par 5 1 1,000,000.0
0
1,000,000.0
0
2 5 5
Dogleg par 5 1 1,500,000.0
0
1,500,000.0
0
1.5 5 5
Straight par 4 4 750,000.0
0
3,000,000.0
0
6 4 16
Dogleg par 4 8 900,000.0
0
7,200,000.0
0
16 4 32
Long par 3 2 600,000.0
0
1,200,000.0
0
3.5 3 6
Short par 3 2 650,000.0
0
1,300,000.0
0
4.5 3 6
Total 18 5,400,000.0
0
21,200,000.0
0
37.5 70

12
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Now the highest customer satisfaction form golf course is expected to be provided if the golf
course is constructed by following the model and design mentioned in exclusive clubhouse
model 4. This is because on enjoyment index this model has scored highest with 37.5. Thus, the
second highest score on index of enjoyment is clubhouse exclusive model 3. The important
factor to be considered here though is that the company will have to make additional investment
of $1.2 million to complete the project of developing the golf course in the resort of the
company. The final decision thus, shall rest with the management of the company and only after
assessing the implications of all possible factors on the final outcome that any decision can be
taken (Lee & Kang, 2016).
Conclusion and recommendation:
It is clear that the choice in front of the management is between two models to build the golf
course as per the international criterions mentioned at the beginning. These two models are
standard clubhouse model which is expected to cost $19.25 million and provide a customer
satisfaction index of 35.5 and the exclusive clubhouse model 4 which has an enjoyment index of
37.5 with the cost exceeding the projected $20 million by a margin of $1.2 million.
Recommendation:
Thus, in case the company has shortage of funds then it shall use standard clubhouse and build
the golf course as per standard golf course model outlined at the very beginning, i.e. the first
model. This will help the company to save almost $0.75 million from its allocated budget.
However, in case the company is in a position where it can arrange $1.2 million to finance the
golf course project then the company should use exclusive clubhouse model 4 to build the golf
course in the resort (Thamhain, 2013).

13
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING

14
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
References:
An Adopted Business Model Driven Framework Based Analysis Over SOA.
(2015). International Journal Of Science And Research (IJSR), 4(11), 1690-1694. doi:
10.21275/v4i11.nov151068
Bañuls, V., López, C., Turoff, M., & Tejedor, F. (2017). Predicting the Impact of Multiple Risks
on Project Performance: A Scenario-Based Approach. Project Management Journal, 48(5),
95-114. doi: 10.1177/875697281704800507
Budimir, B. (2016). Feasibility study of investment projects. Trendovi U Poslovanju, 4(2), 29-
34. doi: 10.5937/trendpos1602029b
Czyzewski, B., & McGraw, B. (2018). Detection of Listronotus maculicollis (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae) Turfgrass Canopy Activity With the Use of a Novel Fluorescent Marking
System Suggests Opportunities for Improved Mechanical Control. Environmental
Entomology, 47(6), 1525-1531. doi: 10.1093/ee/nvy156
Johnson, P., Dyke, A., Hodgson, E., Murray, M., & Kopp, K. (2012). Interest, Incentives, and
Education Towards Organic Golf Course Management: A Study of Utah Golf Course
Superintendents. Ats, 9(1), 10-12. doi: 10.1094/ats-2012-0320-01-tt
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and
project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal Of Project
Management, 33(6), 1377-1392. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.005

15
DATA ANALYSIS AND DECISION MODELLING
Kolodenkova, A. (2017). THE METHODOLOGY OF PROJECTS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
FOR CREATE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. Vestnik Komp'iuternykh I
Informatsionnykh Tekhnologii, 2(7), 40-47. doi: 10.14489/vkit.2017.08.pp.040-047
Lee, Y., & Kang, S. (2016). The effects of the factors of the golf tourism marketing mix on golf
course image and golf tourist satisfaction : Golf tourists at the "L" golf course, Jeonnam
Prvince, as a case. International Journal Of Tourism And Hospitality Research, 30(9), 237.
doi: 10.21298/ijthr.2016.09.30.9.237
Scally, W. (2012). Book Review: Business Driven Project Portfolio Management: Conquering
the Top 10 Risks that Threaten Success. Project Management Journal, 43(4), 83-83. doi:
10.1002/pmj.21284
Thamhain, H. (2013). Managing Risks in Complex Projects. Project Management
Journal, 44(2), 20-35. doi: 10.1002/pmj.21325