REPRINT...

Developing Park Maintenance Standards

By Walter H. Bumgardner, Director, Leisure Studies & Resources Program, University of Massachusetts

(Editor's Note: This article is reprinted from May 77 Parks Maintenance magazine. Any inquiries can be addressed to Park Maintenance, P.O. Box 1936, Appleton, Wisconsin 54911.)

Since the early 1900's when Friedrick W. Taylor fathered the "Scientific Management" movement, there have been continual efforts by private industry and government to refine work performance standards. Although Taylor's concept has given way to the more contemporary behavorial science movement, his logic for utilizing work performance standards has become more valid today than ever. The high performance, crucial to the profit motive, is equally important to agencies entrusted with stewardship of public park and recreation resources.

There is virtually unanimous agreement among park managers that one of the prerequisites to effective maintenance programs is the application of maintenance standards. Managers occasionally have an opportunity to discuss standards during workshops and conferences, but too little research is being done on the subject and far too little written to advance it from the existing low technological level. Some managers are making localized efforts to improve standards; however, the comparative results are not being sufficiently disseminated throughout the field to be useful to others.

The literature indicates that the need for establishing a basic methodology for developing park maintenance standards has largely gone unrecognized. Furthermore, in the few cases where "park maintenance standards" have been published they have been not only somewhat arbitrarily established, but often grossly misrepresented as being widely applicable. Nothing could be further from reality. Park Maintenance standards are valid only when they have been developed to fit local circumstances that reflect agency objectives, capabilities and the nature of the resources being maintained. However, regardless of the variables, maintenance standards are the sine-qua-non of a well formulated maintenance plan.

The purpose here is to suggest a methodology for developing park maintenance standards. To begin with, there is a fundamental need for an operational definition of maintenance standards. I propose that maintenance standards should be defined as:

Guidelines specifying measurements of the quantitative and qualitative levels to which maintenance tasks should be accomplished.

This definition incorporates an important aspect (quality) of maintenance which has characteristically been left to chance. The emphasis has traditionally been placed on the quantification of man hours and unit costs to carry out tasks and these have, to a large degree, been relied upon as indicators of quality.

An example of the techniques used to calculate these quantitative components was described in (1) Grounds Maintenance, September, 1970. Two illustrations of how those types of techniques have been refined and expanded are found in publications by the (2) Dallas Park and Recreation Department and the (3) Broome County, New York, Park and Recreation Department.

There appears to be comparatively little difficulty in establishing and measuring the quantitative components basic to standards, but there has not been a valid and reliable technique illustrated for incorporating the essential qualitative components.

We have not developed a universal procedure for answering the question: What is the minimum acceptable qualitative level to which park maintenance tasks should be accomplished?

In attempting to resolve this problem one's immediate tendency might be to somehow try to quantify quality. A common approach is to specify measurable units of worker productivity, but this is not a reliable indicator of desirable levels of such things as park aesthetics, cleanliness and public health precautions.

Another approach, that which is most frequently used by maintenance officials, is the inspection and subjective assessment technique. The shortcoming of this approach is the probability for inconsistent application in

Illinois Parks and Recreation 26 September/October, 1977

varying situations. Problems can arise in relaying these types of expectations to seasonal or temporary staff. Contractors may also be hampered in meeting expectations when they are imprecise.

Considering the alternatives, I suggest that narrative descriptions containing proportionate quantifications provide a workable approach for specifying quality. Supplementing with photographs and illustrations is an effective means of conveying quality. This requires that each task be evaluated to determine how well it must be completed to meet the minimum desirable expectations. Qualitative features of standards must be periodically reviewed and updated for the same reasons that quantitative features must be, i.e., seasonable changes and variations in manpower, funds and technology.

Regardless of the local variations in approach to specifying quantity and quality, the common denominator to developing standards is to begin by identifying key result areas (KRA's). These are the maintenance jobs that are considered basic and essential to an effective program. They are the key functions that must be carried out to meet the objectives of the maintenance plan. Examples relative to routine types of maintenance, include weed control, litter removal and lawn trimming.

The process of establishing KRA's is most effectively accomplished when designed around a well structured park maintenance classification system. The following system was developed and is utilized by the Dallas Park Maintenance and Development Division. I recommend it as a guide for organizing park maintenance systems.

All Park Department maintained property is classified into one of four major classifications, A, B, C, and D. There are many cases where a park site has all four categories of maintenance performed; however, it is recognized by that classification which is predominant.

Class A Parks-Class A Parks are park properties representing the highest quality of maintenance. Below are listed the characteristics which distinguish the Class A quality maintenance.

1. Horticulture Program-Represents annual or color beds that require a considerable amount of maintenance in the form of hand cultivation, chemical weed control, disease control, fertilization, periodic renovation, etc.

2. Well landscaped with trees and shrubs-requiring a considerable amount of manual labor for proper maintenance.

3. Well developed turfgrass-requires much maintenance in order to supply the quality that is desired both aesthetically and for the support of recreation programs.

4. Complete irrigation system, automatic or quick coupler-meaning the system covers the entire Class A area.

5. Extensive development of park facilities—recreation buildings, tennis courts, swimming pools, multi-use courts, picnic shelters.

6. Often a permanent job station for park caretakers during the growing season.

7. Receives regular and intensive litter control.

8. Receives regular tree maintenance.

9. Mowed with hydraulic reel -(2-12 day interval). Parks of the Class A classification are in mowing priority rating Category I and II.

Class B Parks-Class B Parks rank very close in quality to Class A parks with the main difference being there is no horticulture program. Class B parks have very fine athletic facilities and are most distinguished by their well developed turf management program. Listed below are the characteristics which define the Class B Park.

1. Park is normally well landscaped with trees and shrubs requiring a considerable amount of manual labor for proper maintenance.

2. Well developed turfgrass requires much maintenance in order to supply that quality that is desired both aesthetically and for the support of recreation programs.

3. Complete irrigation system, automatic or quick coupler meaning the systems covers the entire Class B area.

4. Extensive development for park facilities-recreation building, tennis courts, swimming pools, multi-use courts, picnic shelters.

5. Often a permanent job station for park caretakers during the growing season.

6. Receives regular and intensive litter control.

7. Receives regular tree maintenance.

8. Mowed with hydraulic reel (5-12 day interval) parks of Class B classification are in mowing priority rating category I and II.

Class C Parks-Class C Parks receive a considerably different

Illinois Parks and Recreation 27 September/October, 1977

maintenance program than do Class A and B. They are utilized for many athletic programs but, of course, do not have the well developed turf, due to those parks not being equipped with an irrigation system. Below are listed the characteristics which distinguish the Class C Park.

1. No irrigation system.

2. No horticulture program.

3. Mowed with rotary mower on a 10-18 day mowing schedule—parks of this classification fall into mowing priority rating category III and occasionally category IV.

4. Receives minimum landscaping in the form of trees must be watered by a water truck.

5. Receives regular scheduled litter control.

6. Has limited development of park facilities-baseball diamonds, picnic shelters, multicourts and sometimes tennis courts.

Class D Parks-Class D Parks receive the least amount of maintenance and are frequently utilized as nature areas. Parks that fall within this category receive limited mowing at strategic areas.

[A portion of this article is missing from our hard copy version.]

Below are listed the maintenanace procedures performed on Class D park areas.

1. Regular litter control.

2. Limited mowing—only in strategic locations, such as, along roadways, or perhaps parking areas-parks in this classification fall into the mowing priority rating number IV or receive occasional mowing of 30 days or longer. (Once or twice per year).

3. Normally designated as nature areas or greenbelt property.

4. Encourage native grasses, wildflowers and native trees and seeding trees to develop naturally.

5. Newly acquired property.

By employing a well organized system, like that developed by the City of Dallas, and identifying key result areas, one is then ready to delineate specific tasks for which standards should be established. Such tasks include, pulling weeds from a floral display, picking up paper and edging sidewalks.

Once a list of tasks for each key result areas has been completed, the next step is to compute and specify the quantitative and qualitative factors for the desired results. The following is a list of suggested criteria to apply and errors to avoid.

Criteria for developing park maintenance standards

1. Does the standard measure something significant to the success of a particular job?

2. Is the standard compatible with the organization's maintenance objectives and the mission of the agency?

3. Does the standard require a challenging, realistic (sufficiently high, not too high) level of worker and machine performance?

4. Is the objective stated specifically in terms of the method of measurement and evaluation to be used? Does the standard make clear: What is being measured? How it is being measured? Over what time period?

5. Has the tendency to quantify the job in microscopic detail been avoided?

6. Is the attainment of any standard likely to cause an undesirable effect in some area of the organization's operations?

7. Is confliction with recreation programs by the maintenance schedule avoided?

8. Are a sufficient number of high priority needs of the employee worked into the maintenance programs so that they become committed to the standards and objectives of the program rather being merely controlled?

Basic errors to avoid when developing park maintenance standards

1. The time period over which the standard is to be applied and/ or with which it is to be compared is missing, incomplete or inappropriate for the seasons of the year.

2. The standard is a good standard for some other key result area. By itself, it is an inadequate measuring tool for this key result area.

3. It is insufficiently clear what standard is being used to measure a particular key result area. The standard is vague and not acceptable. The standard uses immeasurable, intangible activity rather than specific operational terms dealing with tangible activity or performance as a measuring tool.

4. The standard is specified without any indication that it is only a "base" or "minimum acceptable" standard.

5. The standard is set unrealistically low, overly imperfect, or too loose.

6. The standard is set unrealistically high, overly perfect, or too strict.

The proposals and recommendations contained herein are admittedly untested. They should be regarded as starting points for refining maintenance procedures while simultaneously taking into account the uniquenesses of each park system.

Practically all park systems have one feature in common today—fiscal austerity. Maintenance standards that are well developed and executed provide one foreseeable means for countering this problem.

References

(1) Grounds Maintenance, September 1970. "1970 Landscape, Work Simplification, Measurement, Performance Guide." pp. 25-28.

(2) Maintenance Standards and Cost Analysis, Park Maintenance and Development Division, Dallas Park and Recreation Department, Dallas, Texas.

(3) Schaefer, Theodore H., November, 1972, A Method of Data Collection For Use by Park and Recreation Departments to Analyze Operation and Maintenance Costs.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 28 September/October, 1977