Ryan,
It seems standard (to me, anyway) that a golf biz consultant does a study, with a gca as a sub to determine potential upgrades. Usually the biz consultant analyzes the market and may request the gca provide low, medium and high renovation options so they can determine the cost and debt of proposed improvements and what they can support. Low is usually patching up, medium may be infrastructure and new grasses, and high gets into the "rebranding" of a course.
Consultants tend to be optimistic or pessimistic types, which you might determine in an interview. Most basically say the market provides X rounds and has Y number of courses, and presumes that with proper upgrades, if your course is 90% of "Y" it will get to the norm. Some consultants think you might get more than the norm, others not. Obviously, location and other trends make each course a bit different than the norm.
NGF did a study 2015 in DFW showing most public (and some private) renovations do increase revenues. Just an opinion, but as more courses have upgraded, the desire to go play the new course in town (or newly renovated) at a great premium price seems to have waned a bit. Spending less had the greatest ROI, and spending more had greater revenue increases, but a lower ROI, in general, which makes sense to me. Fix what you need to fix (i.e., greens, irrigation, bunkers) and don't overspend. Golfers prefer maintenance to design anyway, which is a pretty well known concept, LOL.