Mike,
I meet a lot of committee members at various clubs. With great intentions but often ill-informed, they proceed to map out and execute important initiatives for their clubs. Often they aren't even sure what they want to do, they simply know they need to do something. They don't have a guidebook, a checklist or other kinds of structures that allow them to figure out just what it is they determine is required nor resources such as an organized archives or where to go for aerial photograph collections and other information that is of great help to the determination process.
Where is the advocacy for true restoration and preservation? How does one do the right thing for a club when it may conflict with economic incentives? There are some supremely talented architects, shapers, construction companies, researchers/historians. I would hope to see a mechanism whereby these components can come together in efficient ways to continue to produce outstanding achievements and avoid big mistakes. I do worry that some pieces of this intricate puzzle of art and science promote themselves with more smoke and mirrors along with glitzy marketing and fancy presentations than they do with underpinnings of talent and experience.
Professional standards and a baseline certification of golf course architects are not established. Anybody can call themself a golf course architect. What are they capable of doing? Do they sell themselves in an accurate manner? I've seen a list of "work" by architects, some of them just getting in the business and others that have been in the business for decades. I know there are inaccuracies and exaggerations. Someone can write up a master plan of some kind and say they are/were consultants at a club when their work hasn't been approved or implemented. The impression being that they are the de facto architect for the club. There just isn't any peer review or standard credentials. The lack of peer review and certification in my mind hinders the profession somewhat. It should be self-regulating and prevent untested and untrained individuals, who happen to be better businessmen than architects, from presenting themselves as something they are not. It also should ensure that qualified architects present accurate qualifications.
The BS needs to be controlled. I think self regulating is the way to go. While a lot of BS is slinging back and forth on this site (I admit guilt at times), it is often caught and discarded. But not always. The so-called experts on this site can be exposed since we have a review process, though not a formal one. Many of us are quick to jump on the ill-conceived idea or poorly stated case. Sometimes we are too quick and too harsh and that stifles dialog. There are a few notable self-proclaimed experts on this site that profess to knowing it all and that others are incapable of knowing enough to counter their claims. As they reach their 2500th course played and 81st in North Dakota, their expertise just seems to grow even more...in their own minds.