Management Report: Cunningham Gudgal Golf Resort

This management report discusses the decision-making process for the development of Cunningham Gudgal Golf Resort, including the choice between a standard clubhouse and an exclusive clubhouse.

Running head: MANAGEMENT REPORT
Cunningham Gudgal Golf Resort
Management Plan
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
1

Management Report
Introduction
In modem management, decision making is one of the essential skills that have to be
possessed by the managers. Sound and rational thinking should be a primary function of the
managers. Each manager does occasionally make hundreds of decisions whether consciously or
unconsciously (Eric, 2011). The decisions made by the firm are what determined the strategies
applies by the firm to gain a competitive advantage over the other industry players. As the
management of a firm its crucial to ensure the decisions made are in line with the sustainability
concept. Sustainability refers to the ability of the firm to make choices that will see it prosper
into the future. In recent times the concept of sustainability is being fronted by most of the
company CEOs. For this reason, prior to taking on an action, the firm has to research on its
future impact economically, socially as well as ecologically (Pratima & DesJardine, 2014).
Cunningham holdings limited is a diversified family operated firm that is focused on
providing hospitality services. The company operates under the corporate vision of “creating
Sustainable Products and Services for Globally Connected Communities”. As a way of
implementing this vison the firm is currently focused on the development of the rural
communities. The managers are determined to adhere to the UN sustainable development goals
and prefer to include this in the planning and innovation activities of Cunningham limited. In the
previous board meeting the CEO of Cunningham Oscar Cunningham did loud the managers plan
to allocate $ 20 million to the development of an international golf resort named Cunningham
Gudgal Golf Resort. Included in the resort will be a standard clubhouse. The suggestion to
include a standard clubhouse was though not supported by the shareholders who instead
suggested inclusion of an exclusive clubhouse.
As the senior business analyst of the firm I was requested by the CEO to undertake
analysis and come up with the best course of action that the firm ought to undertake. This report
is therefore meant to document the findings and provide recommendations
Implementation of the models
To arrive at the best course of action several models of the project were created so as to have a
view of their impact to the business resources as well as the clients of the firm. The aim of the
project is to develop local tourism while at the same time growing the business brand. For this

Management Report
reason, the project is focused on ensuring clients derive optimum utility from it. The CEO of the
firm did conduct a study on the basic features that an international golf resort ought to possess. In
the development of the projects the first step was to identify the decision variables. In this case
this was the holes’ configuration that need to be in the golf resort. In addition, the firm has to
decide on the clubhouse to include in the resort. The decision variables were to be varied so as to
maximise the total customer enjoyment. The project constraint are the features that need to be
met by the golf club in addition to the firm’s resource limitations.
The tables below display the models that were developed to assist in the decision-making
process.
Table 1
Manager’s Standard Clubhouse Model
Cunningham Gudgal Golf Resort
Decision variables
Kind of golfing hole Total Pars
Total size taken by the
holes
Total
enjoyment
index of the
holes
Building cost of
the holes Number of holes
Straght par 5 5 3 2 $1,000,000 1 >= 1
Dogleg par 5 5 3.5 1.5 $1,500,000 1 >= 1
Straght par 4 8 4 3 $1,500,000 2 >= 2
Dogleg par 4 40 25 20 $9,000,000 10 >= 2
Long par 3 3 1 1.75 $600,000 1 >= 1
Short par 3 9 2.25 6.75 $1,950,000 3 >= 1
70 38.75 35 $15,550,000 18
Total
The Standard Clubhouse
Land Size Occupied 3
Construction Cost $4,000,000
Constraints
Golf resort area 38.75 >= 36
Total project Cost $19,550,000 <= $21,000,000
Total land size 41.75 <= 42
Total holes 18 = 18
Par 5 2 <= 4
Par 4 12 <= 14
Par 3 4 <= 4
Total Pars 70 <= 72
Total Pars 70 >= 70
The Objective Function
Total Enjoyment Index 35
Table 2

Management Report
Shareholders Exclusive Clubhouse Model
Cunningham Gudgal Golf Resort
Decision variables
Kind of golfing hole Total Pars
Total size taken
by the holes
Total enjoyment
index of the holes
Building cost of the
holes Number of holes
Straght par 5 8.25 4.95 3.3 $1,650,000 1.65 >= 1
Dogleg par 5 5 3.5 1.5 $1,500,000 1 >= 1
Straght par 4 41.6 20.8 15.6 $7,800,000 10.4 >= 2
Dogleg par 4 8 5 4 $1,800,000 2 >= 2
Long par 3 3 1 1.75 $600,000 1 >= 1
Short par 3 3 0.75 2.25 $650,000 1 >= 1
68.85 36 28.4 $14,000,000 17.05
Total
The Exclusive Clubhouse
Land Size Occupied 4
Construction Cost $6,000,000
Enjoyment Index 4
Constraints
Golf resort area 36 >= 36
Total project Cost $20,000,000 <= $20,000,000
Total land size 40 <= 42
Total holes 17.05 = 18
Par 5 2.65 <= 4
Par 4 12.4 <= 14
Par 3 2 <= 4
Total Pars 68.85 <= 72
Total Pars 68.85 >= 70
The Objective Function
Total Enjoyment Index 32
Table 3
Option 1 To the Shareholders Exclusive Clubhouse Model

Management Report
Cunningham Gudgal Golf Resort
Decision variables
Kind of golfing hole Total Pars
Total size taken by
the holes
Total enjoyment
index of the
holes
Building cost of
the holes Number of holes
Straght par 5 10 6 4 $2,000,000 2 >= 1
Dogleg par 5 5 3.5 1.5 $1,500,000 1 >= 1
Straght par 4 36 18 13.5 $6,750,000 9 >= 2
Dogleg par 4 8 5 4 $1,800,000 2 >= 2
Long par 3 9 3 5.25 $1,800,000 3 >= 1
Short par 3 3 0.75 2.25 $650,000 1 >= 1
71 36.25 30.5 $14,500,000 18
Total
The Exclusive Clubhouse
Land Size Occupied 3
Construction Cost $5,500,000
Enjoyment Index 4
Constraints
Golf resort area 36.25 >= 36
Total project Cost $20,000,000 <= $20,000,000
Total land size 39.25 <= 42
Total holes 18 = 18
Par 5 3 <= 4
Par 4 11 <= 14
Par 3 4 <= 4
Total Pars 71 <= 72
Total Pars 71 >= 70
The Objective Function
Total Enjoyment Index 35
Table 4
Option 2 To the Shareholders Exclusive Clubhouse Model

Management Report
Cunningham Gudgal Golf Resort
Decision variables
Kind of golfing hole Total Pars
Total size taken
by the holes
Total enjoyment
index of the holes
Building cost of
the holes Number of holes
Straght par 5 5 3 2 $1,000,000 1 >= 1
Dogleg par 5 5 3.5 1.5 $1,500,000 1 >= 1
Straght par 4 28 14 10.5 $5,250,000 7 >= 2
Dogleg par 4 20 12.5 10 $4,500,000 5 >= 2
Long par 3 3 1 1.75 $600,000 1 >= 1
Short par 3 9 2.25 6.75 $1,950,000 3 >= 1
70 36.25 32.5 $14,800,000 18
Total
The Exclusive Clubhouse
Land Size Occupied 4
Construction Cost $5,200,000
Enjoyment Index 4
Constraints
Golf resort area 36.25 >= 36
Total project Cost $20,000,000 <= $20,000,000
Total land size 40.25 <= 42
Total holes 18 = 18
Par 5 2 <= 4
Par 4 12 <= 14
Par 3 4 <= 4
Total Pars 70 <= 72
Total Pars 70 >= 70
The Objective Function
Total Enjoyment Index 37
Table 5
Option 3 To the Shareholders Exclusive Clubhouse Model

Management Report
Cunningham Gudgal Golf Resort
Decision variables
Kind of golfing hole Total Pars
Total size taken by
the holes
Total enjoyment
index of the holes
Building cost of the
holes
Number of
holes
Straght par 5 5 3 2 $1,000,000 1 >= 1
Dogleg par 5 5 3.5 1.5 $1,500,000 1 >= 1
Straght par 4 24 12 9 $4,500,000 6 >= 2
Dogleg par 4 24 15 12 $5,400,000 6 >= 2
Long par 3 3 1 1.75 $600,000 1 >= 1
Short par 3 9 2.25 6.75 $1,950,000 3 >= 1
70 36.75 33 $14,950,000 18
Total
The Exclusive Clubhouse
Land Size Occupied 4
Construction Cost $6,000,000
Enjoyment Index 4
Constraints
Golf resort area 36.75 >= 36
Total project Cost $20,950,000 <= $21,000,000
Total land size 40.75 <= 42
Total holes 18 = 18
Par 5 2 <= 4
Par 4 12 <= 14
Par 3 4 <= 4
Total Pars 70 <= 72
Total Pars 70 >= 70
The Objective Function
Total Enjoyment Index 37
Table 6
An Alternative Model

Management Report
Cunningham Gudgal Golf Resort
Decision variables
Kind of golfing hole Total Pars
Total size taken by the
holes Total enjoyment index of the holes
Building cost of
the holes Number of holes
Straght par 5 5 3 2 $1,000,000 1 >= 1
Dogleg par 5 5 3.5 1.5 $1,500,000 1 >= 1
Straght par 4 8 4 3 $1,500,000 2 >= 2
Dogleg par 4 40 25 20 $9,000,000 10 >= 2
Long par 3 3 1 1.75 $600,000 1 >= 1
Short par 3 9 2.25 6.75 $1,950,000 3 >= 1
70 38.75 35 $15,550,000 18
Total
The Standard Clubhouse
Land Size Occupied 3
Construction Cost $4,000,000
Constraints
Golf resort area 38.75 >= 36
Total project Cost $19,550,000 <= $20,000,000
Total land size 41.75 <= 42
Total holes 18 = 18
Par 5 2 <= 4
Par 4 12 <= 14
Par 3 4 <= 4
Total Pars 70 <= 72
Total Pars 70 >= 70
The Objective Function
Total Enjoyment Index 35
Analysis of the feasible models
Managers plan
Based on the managers plan which was lauded by the CEO, the firm ought to include a
standard clubhouse in the golf resort project. The clubhouse will occupy an area of 2 hectares
and will be constructed at a cost of $ 3.5 million. Should the company go with the managers plan
they will need a total of $ 19.05 million to fund the project and a land space of 40.75 hectares.
This project will return a total enjoyment index of 35 for the prospective clients. The
implementation of the project will mean the firm has to adhere to the holes configuration as
indicated; The straight par 5 and dogleg par 5 will be 1 hole each, 2 holes straight par 4, 10 holes
for dogleg par 4 while the long par 3 and short par 3 will be 1 and 3 holes respectively.
Shareholders request option 1
The original request of the shareholders cannot be achieved given the resource constraint
if the firm. For this reason, I did develop some alternative that should be considered as a way of
improving the managers’ suggestion.

Management Report
For the option 1, the shareholders exclusive clubhouse will be reduced to 3 hectares from
the initially suggested 4 hectares, also its construction cost will be cut from the previous $ 6
million to $ 5.5 million. Adhering to this project will need a total project fund of $ 20 million
which is what the firm had planned to allocate to the golf resort. The total land space needed will
be 39.25 hectares. In return the project will yield a total enjoyment index of 35. The
implementation of the option 1 will mean the golf resort should have holes’ configuration as
displayed in the table below.
Kind of golfing
hole
Number of
holes
Straight par 5 2
Dogleg par 5 1
Straight par 4 9
Dogleg par 4 2
Long par 3 3
Short par 3 1
Option 2
Under the option 2, the shareholders request is modified by cutting down the construction
cost of the exclusive clubhouse from the initially suggested $ 6 million to $ 5.2 million.
Implementing this model will consume a total of $ 20 million, and a land space of 40.25
hectares. The project will generate a total consumer enjoyment index of 37. To put this project in
place the golf holes for the resort should be configured as illustrated; The straight par 5, dogleg
par 5 and long par 3 each should have just one hole, the straight par 4 should have 7 holes,
dogleg par 4to have 5 holes and shirt par 3 to have 3 holes. This will be a total of 18 holes which
meets the standard of an international golf resort.
Option 3
Under option 3 the shareholders original request should be adopted; however, the
managers will have to increase the budget allocation to the project to $ 21 million from the
initially suggested $ 20 million. These changes will mean the firm will have to spend $ 20.95

Management Report
million to put the golf resort in place, in addition the total land space utilised will be 40.75
hectares. In return the project will yield a total enjoyment index of 37. The configuration of the
golf holes under the option 3 model should be as displayed by the table below.
Kind of golfing
hole
Number of
holes
Straight par 5 1
Dogleg par 5 1
Straight par 4 6
Dogleg par 4 6
Long par 3 1
Short par 3 3
Alternative model
This model was derived to try improve on the features of the managers standard
clubhouse model. The model entails constructing a clubhouse at a cost of $ 4 million and
occupying an area of 3 hectares. Implementation of this model will cost the firm a total of $19.55
million and a land space of 41.75 hectares. The holes configuration under this model is as
displayed below.
Kind of
golfing hole
Number of
holes
Straight par
5 1
Dogleg par 5 1
Straight par
4 2
Dogleg par 4 10
Long par 3 1
Short par 3 3
This yield a total enjoyment index of 35.
Implications of the feasible models

Management Report
The request of the shareholders is for the firm to construct an international golf resort
with an exclusive clubhouse in it. The clubhouse is to cover an area of 4 hectares and to be
constructed at a cost of $ 6 million. Out of all the 5 models above only the one under option 3
adheres to these features. The model is though not viable as it cannot be met with the available
budget allocation.
Recommendation
The table below summarises the 5 models based on the various features.
Table 7
Summary of The Models
Model Cost ($ million) Land space (ha) Enjoyment index
Standard clubhouse 19.05 40.75 35
opt 1 20 40.25 37
opt 2 20 39.25 35
opt 3 20.95 40.75 37
Alternative 19.55 41.75 35
Looking at the table above, the models with the greatest consumer enjoyment are option
1 and 3. For the standard clubhouse, option 2 and the alternative model the enjoyment index
derived is 35. Even though the firm’s target is to optimize the enjoyment index of the consumers,
this must be done within the budget constraint of the firm. For this reason, option 3 is not a
viable model to implement. The alternative model was meant to improve on the managers plan
however its total enjoyment index remained at 35 similar to the initial managers model despite
the increased cost of construction. The model is thus not economical to implement. For the firm
to save on the cost of construction while at the same time optimizing the consumer enjoyment,
the managers plan to construct a standard clubhouse should be adopted. This plan gives the most
appropriate holes configuration and is within the budget constraint of the firm. As much as
option 1 looks more advantageous, it is based on the assumption that the firm will be able to cut
down the cost of the exclusive clubhouse, should this not be possible the firm risk running out of

Management Report
capital before completing the project. This may generate a ghost project that is not economically
viable to firm. The standard clubhouse hence remains the best model to implement.

Management Report
References
Eric, R., 2011. The lean startup: how today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create
radically successful businesses, New York: Crown Business.
Pratima, B. & DesJardine, M., 2014. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization,
12(1), pp. 70-78.