I'm sure the new Confidential Guide is going to be great and we all are going to want one. To update a book like that every 10 or 15 years is about the right timeframe. You'll always have one or two exceptions, but by and large golf courses don't change all that quickly. Some new ones are built, but you'll be well advised to wait a few years before assessing their quality.
The proposition to make the Doak scale more of a business benchmark doesn't have all that much to do with the book, I believe. Sure, the book is going to be the basis for everything, but that is just like the bible is the basis for Christianity, but there are all kinds of business ventures on top of that. Yes, a Guide Michelin style project would be a business all by itself. It could be done without Tom Doak: just use the same standards, but a different name. Since 95% of all golfers don't know Tom Doak anyway, why not enlist Ernie Els or any other name with a bit of mainstream recognition?
Of course we GCAers wouldn't take it very seriously then, but who are we? Just a bunch of geeks 
Bottom-line: you either make it economically viable, then you are competing with all the existing rankings, or you make it an ivory tower project run by a lot of volunteers in their spare time.
Ulrich
Ullrich,
I appreciate your observations, and agree that another ranking enterprise could exist independent of Tom and his book. As he said, it's his baby,and he is inextricably tied to it, both for good and bad. That he's embracing it afresh, given the change in his stature in the industry since the last edition, is remarkable on its own. I don't think anyone would look at the arc of his career and say there's a gap because he didn't go back and update what I understand were frank and pointed assessments of the highest profile courses extant. What does it say about the man, that he wants to be known for this dimension of his body of work, as a critic and observer, in addition to being a top shelf architect who has gotten world class courses into the ground. To me that shows an admirable measure of character, of conviction, of ownership, self-confidence, and clarity of purpose.
That said, I believe Tom, the Confidential Guide, and the Doak scale enjoy a number of advantages over the Ernie Els Guide if one were to make a commercial ranking system on their basis.
1. Tom's got a Point of View that is well established. His opinion isn't random, nor is it capricious. You don't have to agree with his POV, but if you buy into it, even enough, that gives the ratings immediacy and value.
2. The Doak scale has 25 years under its belt as of 2014. it's been applies to many of the World's best courses. There's a baseline established that a commercial venture could build on, as well as reference back to for validity.
3. Tom's got a number of publications under his belt. Even if the general public hasn't read them, it's good to show the back catalog to validate his credentials.
4. His opinion is leant substantial gravitas by the number of courses of his appearing in the other top-100 lists. He has I believe 5 in the last Golf Magazine list. When you ask "who is he" to say, well, that's who he is.
5. The ratings are controversial, to some degree. That lends credibility, that they aren't the product of a "me, too" source. In a conservative industry, there's value in standing out as willing to challenge the orthodoxy.
6. As noted in the comments on Robert Parker, the Cognescenti know Tom, and they will care.
7. Because Tom's not a household brand, you would have a pretty blank slate to work from when introducing a commercial vehicle on his brand into the market. Based on the above points, there's a ton to build from.
8. There are a lot of people in the industry who would want to see the things I take it Tom values: fun, playability, challenge for all skills, strategic interest and depth, sustainability; more prominent in the conversation and the decision making in clubs at all levels. They would love an outside validator to bolster their arguments.
9. The scaling problem? That's what surrogates are for. Not every Bushwood gets a visit from the Tom, sorry. And surrogates are needed as Some periodic review is appropriate. The public is owed timely updates, and the courses need to be kept honest. Does every course get a visit every cycle? No. But enough for the ratings to be relevant.
That's my argument for the Guide Doak, a purely academic argument, fit for an online discussion board. :-)