I would say the Golf, Inc thing is pure hogwash for most renovations, but in truth, I know of some drainage, forward tee, tree clearing, and maybe one new green projects where the owner insists on applying for the award. I agree with Mark that the magazine would do us all a service if they added a low budget/critical fix only/practical, or whatever, category recognizing those who spend more wisely. Not all total redos are unwise, mind you, but the days of rebuild it extravagantly and they will come, seem to be on the wane, based on my experience. A 6 year old NGF study shows that total rebuilding and rebranding does raise revenues the most, in about 90% of the cases, but in all cases, lower cost, targeted renovations raise revenue less, but provide a greater ROI, which is probably the goal in most renovations.
I also agree with the idea that many projects are over feed with consultants of various kinds. I get it in a way, as things have become specialized everywhere, but in others I don't. When I started, I did my own irrigation plans, but I found irrigation consultants were both cheap and up to date as the nature of irrigation materials (i.e., controllers and sprinklers) changed every year and I wasn't keeping up as I should. I still do small irrigation plans if we are rebuilding laterals around greens and tees, but I don't mess with mainlines any more. I do often review my irrigation consultants plans, sometimes because my training was to shorten mainlines to save cost, while most of them now seem to prefer to run a large mainline aside every hole, when in reality, that sub branch or loop really only needs 4-6" to cover 2 holes, not 8-12" as if carrying half the holes on the golf course, but cost control doesn't seem to be an issue as much as it once was.
Also, turf consultants were usually not a thing, and now most projects have both, and sometimes many more. It makes some sense with gca's working across the globe, and in most cases, not willing to take the advice of the seed salesman as their only source of grass knowledge, LOL>
A few well publicized lawsuits regarding greens forced many gca's into farming out the greens mix testing, and writing clauses in our agreements that we do not recommend greens mix, although I believe the impact of those lawsuits was probably overblown. Some testing labs really seem to ratchet up negative consequences as their marketing tools, which doesn't help.
In a way, and I am part of the trend, since the 1980's, I joke that gca's have more pages of contract telling the owners what we don't do, as opposed to telling them what we will do for them on a project, LOL.
But, I will step off the soapbox now.....