Kyle,
I think one can be well designed (to a degree) without being well built. For years, many industry folks called Pete Dye courses good designs with sometimes poor construction. Probably a result of using a lot of younger guys at times. And, of course, those critiques came from professional golf course builders, so they might be called biased.
And, I believe that part of architecture is taking the creativity, but at some point you do have to make the technical details, like drainage, work. I see a lot of neat conceptual design that is horribly designed for those technical aspects. I could name a signature architect where there is a 12" catch basin picking up a 72" drain pipe off the development, for instance. I don't think his team even knew enough to know that is a problem.
And, the architect ought to be responsible somewhat for blending the two. Take a highly perimeter mounded fairway, when the irrigation is only double row, resulting in dead grass between cart path and fairway? Design flaw more than build flaw, IMHO.
In many of those cases, the owner may know it when he sees it.....after a few years of operational struggles due to design deficiencies, as Ian notes.
Of course, there are some good paper designs messed up royally by independent contractors. In those cases, it is typically the responsibility of the Contractor to build to design, but on the other hand, the architect is usually tasked with evaluating how well the contractor follows the plans.
What makes it especially hard is the typical Owner budget scenario. I have had low budgets, and specified drain pipes for a 2 year storm as a result. Then, a 10 year storm happens during construction, showing the shortcomings. The Owner is miffed, but is that a design, construction or budget problem?
Due to budget, I have specified fiber mesh cart paths with no steel, and had contractors give me and the owner a strongly worded letter saying they won't warranty the construction due to "design deficiencies." I give my owners options, but sometimes value engineering makes them suggest a lower quality product. Similarly, I know of a $9M renovation that downsized path width from 8 to 7 feet to meet budget. Could you question how a high end budget had to skimp on one of the main items that make a course playable in bad weather? Could you ever say it was clearly "wrong?" (If for some reason, the parties ever went to court, each side could find a ton of witnesses backing up their position)
If you factor in the actual business side of the design-construction-operation, nearly every design and construction quality issue is a reasonable compromise, considering cost. Thus, I guess it would be hard to put any litmus test on it that would stick.
Cheers.