Balancing Needs and Requirements in the Design

Validating a landscape design, as I originally envisioned it, was to be a method or process for making sure that the design was going to work for the client before any construction actually started.  A fundamental component of getting requirements right (validation) is getting the right requirements (needs analysis).  These two components are intimately linked.  I think what has happened is that the problem (the needs) and the solution (the design) not always balanced and the result falls short of the client’s expectations.  The right design addresses the right needs completely and totally.

One potential imbalance is the case where problems (needs) are not defined or not defined completely.  This is a case of missing or incomplete requirements.  This case can be shown diagrammatically as:

Incomplete Needs Analysis

This is the design-driven design that looks good but does not function well or has other shortcomings such as high maintenance.  It is characterized by needs and requirements that are never defined.  The design can however end up meeting needs unintentionally.  It may also cost more than what it should have if it were targeted correctly.

The second imbalance is where the design does not meet all of the needs.  This situation is shown diagrammatically as:

Incomplete Validation

The design simply does not address all of the needs and requirements.  This is a lack of validation.  The design was not checked against the client’s requirements.  Another possible cause is that the design can uncover new requirements that are not referred back to the client and not incorporated into the design.  This is simply a lack of iterative communication and feedback.

It is difficult to have perfect balance between needs/requirements and the design.  That is really my objective with this blog; to drive that balance as close to perfect as possible through validation techniques.  Validation provides the iterative feedback between design concepts and the discovered needs and requirements that continually refines the design to match the client’s expectations as closely as possible.

Both complete needs gathering and validation are needed.  Getting the right needs and getting all of the needs drives the design in the right direction.  Design ideas are then validated against those needs using the various analyses and data gathered to make sure the design is meeting the client’s expectations.  As new issues arise during the design process they are taken back to the client for clarification and incorporated into updated requirements.  The design evolves through validation, feedback, and refinement.

Iterative Needs Gathering and Validation Balance the Design with the Requirements

Solidifying Client Data

Analysis really starts the minute you meet the client.  We want to get to know our client to find out who they are in addition to what they need.  To do this we have to listen to them, observe them in the context of their residence, and we need to ask questions.

We need to the client listen actively.  Active listening is a process.  It involves focusing on the other person.  Look at them when they speak.  Try to gather any clues to what they are saying that are non-verbal.  Watch their facial expression, gestures, and body language.  By focusing completely on the other person, you are showing your interest in them and what they have to say.  Active listening also requires that you confirm what the other person is saying.  This is not parroting their words.  It is clarifying their statements and rephrasing them so that you and the other person both know you are understanding what is being said.  You may need to ask questions to clarify points.  This further demonstrates your interest in what the other person is saying.  Another part of active listening is to avoid preconceptions and to put your own feelings and opinions aside.  If you do have an alternate view, you should only express it after listening to everything the other person has to say.

It seems to conflict with the aspect of active listening where you are suppose to focus on the other person, but you also have to observe the client’s residence, décor, site, and other tangible things.  You may be able to gather a lot of information about the client’s taste and preference by observing their lifestyle as expressed and demonstrated in their home and yard.  Take any chance you have to note furnishings, decorations, styles, and anything else that reflects the client’s tastes.

When walking the property with the client you are obviously trying to balance several tasks.  You are trying to actively listen to the client, observe what the site currently looks like, and make note of specific requests or items of importance.  Focusing on the client is probably the highest priority.  You can always walk the site again later by yourself or ask the client if a second pass around the area.  The second time through is when you should focus on items you find and make appropriate notes or take digital photos.

You are going to run into situations where there is inconsistency between what the client says and what you think based on your observations.  A classic example is the client with a very traditional home and décor that says they like modern, contemporary styles.  When you have these types of conflicts, one of the best approaches is to ask for an example.  You might ask the client to show you their favorite contemporary piece of furniture or art.  Without being presumptuous, you can also ask the client what it is in a design that makes it contemporary or modern.  Hopefully, they will give you words that define their vision that you can reconcile with what you are seeing.

In previous posts on the topic of client needs I have discussed the use of questionnaires, using facilitation skills, taking clients on tours to view other landscapes, and other techniques.  The purpose of all of these approaches is to fully, and completely, capture all client requirements.  Designers want to hit the mark and wow the client with their design.  Designers thrive on that positive feedback from the client who says, “You created exactly what I wanted.”  The questions are:  How do we know that we completely understand the client and what they want?  Are we missing anything?  Is the client being completely open and straightforward with us?  What is the best way to capture the client “picture” or profile that will permeate my design decisions?

Design analysis documents are frequently used to justify design decisions.  If we build two three-foot retaining walls versus one six-foot retaining wall there is usually some analysis or research behind that decision that supports it.  How do you document the soft data about a client in a way that can be used to justify your design decisions?  The answer may lie in simply documenting what you learn, hear, see, and sense.  Data has one very funny characteristic; it is very soft until it is recorded.  Just documenting your findings turns data that is very soft, and sometimes intuitive, into hard data.

My point is that you should follow a process that is flexible and yet methodical enough to allow you the best possible opportunity to capture everything possible about your client.  Then find a mechanism to document that data.  My August 31, 2009 post, “Tools for Client Focused Designs” [http://ldvalidate.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/tools-for-client-focused-designs/] noted that I like to create a graphic profile of my client that I can keep in front of me when creating and evaluating design ideas.  This is really just one tool that I get to after gathering all of the client data and reviewing and organizing it.  I may transfer my notes into a mind map format to help me organize the information into categories, groups, or specific areas of concern.  Only after I have completely reviewed all of my notes do I create my client profile.  That profile becomes my “picture” of the client and the tool that I use to keep the client in front of me throughout the design process.

Gathering as much data and information about the client as possible is a good first step.  Looking for inconsistencies and exploring those is also beneficial.  Taking copious notes creates a record of what you learn that you can refer back to as the design progresses.  All of your documentation will make the soft client data that you gather solidify into useful, tangible information to draw on as you explore design concepts.  The best approach is to use that information to create a graphic client profile that keeps the client in the forefront of the design process.

Overview of Landscape Design Validation Issues and Process

When I first started looking into the concept of validating landscape designs I prepared a diagram to help understand and explain the issues and process.  A copy of that diagram is shown below.

Design Process Interrelationships

Beginning in the upper left, clients obviously have a site.  The also have needs and values.  They may have a vision.  They may also have some prior experience with landscape design as either do-it-yourselfers or using a designer.  All of the clients “soft” components, needs, values, vision, and experience, combine to form the basis for the client’s expectations from their design.

The designer, in the upper right, completes a site analysis and a client analysis.  That information is used to perform analysis, synthesize the data, and develop design ideas and concepts.  The designer completes the design process creating a final design.  Changes to the client’s site as a result of that design create either a positive or negative experience for the client.

At the bottom center of the diagram are the potential results of positive and negative outcomes for the designer.  All of them in some form are related to client satisfaction and the benefits that come from having happy clients.

Across the lower center of the diagram, the red double-headed arrow highlights the two areas of concern for validation.  First, do we have all client needs and requirements and are they right?  Second, does the design meet the client’s needs and requirements?  Will it meet their expectations?

As I have indicated before, my initial thoughts on this problem were toward 3D virtual reality as a way to validate that the design would work for the client.  Subsequently, many of my posts have been focused on analysis and documentation that can be used as validation tools.  However, the question of making sure all client needs and requirements are obtained and obtained correctly needs to be addressed.

Although I think this diagram explains the fundamental issues and processes, I think the segment from the designer to the design on the right side of the diagram needs to be depicted in more detail.  The tools, procedures, and iterative steps need to be defined.  My August 28, 2009 post, “A Layer Design Model?” [http://ldvalidate.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/a-layer-design-validation-model/] discusses some of my early thoughts on this model.

Reusability and Consistency

In numerous posts, I have stated the benefits of reusing materials.  When you are creating a proposal, it is usually easier to edit an old one and modify it than to start from scratch.  Maybe on old mind map or adjacency analysis from another job can be reused.  If you take advantage of the deliverables and analysis you have already done, you can leverage your time.

Reusing materials has another advantage though.  It leads to consistency.  After I create my initial proposal or client report, each time I modify it, I carry all of the same formatting and appearance features forward.  That means that all of my client correspondence looks the same.  This makes you look professional.  When clients get materials from you they know what to expect.  They are familiar with your documents.

Reusing materials can be taken to an even more granular level.  In my prior to posts I discussed using base plans and digit photos as tools you could use to overlay with text and graphics for client presentations.  When you use this approach, you could use many tools.  I usually prefer PowerPoint.  It is easy and very flexible.  However, it has another advantage.

If I am working on a new set of digital photos for a client, I car reuse the graphics and text from PowerPoint slides I created for another client.  This is simply a matter of have both sets of PowerPoint slides open at the same time and copying select graphics and text from the completed set to the new set.  You will have to modify the text, reposition the graphics, and adjust the color.  However, you are not starting from scratch.  You are reusing previous work and leveraging into new content for another job.

I did a lot of personal computer software training in the past.  The most beneficial lessons in an introductory course are those related to reusing what you have already done.  At a very basic level simply copying and pasting text or graphics within a document are part of this concept.  Copy and pasting between documents takes the concept to the next level.  Opening an existing document, modifying it, and saving it under a new name is the highest level.

The concept can be applying to almost any software media.  In complex DynaSCAPE plans this may not be possible.  However, I have had opportunities to pull specific plant materials and other figures from one drawing to another which saved a substantial amount of time.

Throughout this blog, I have promoted an approach that requires more complete analysis and documentation.  This implies a certain amount of overhead in terms of time and effort in pre-design work.  The additional leverage that reuse can provide will help offset some of this additional time.  In addition, once you create some of the basic analysis documents and templates they are reusable so you are not always starting from scratch.

Reusing materials will save you time.  You get the added benefit of more consistent materials.  As your library of materials grows, opportunities to leverage your materials increase dramatically.

Leveraging Digital Photos

My previous post about “One-pagers” suggested overlaying the base plan with graphics, pictures, text, and other elements to use in client meetings, discussions, feedback sessions, and so forth.  “One-pager” reports don’t always have to be one page.  You can break the base plan into two pieces or more if you need to present more information.

You can use the same type of approach with digital photos when preparing reports and findings for clients.  You can use digital photos with overlays to show ideas, emphasize problem areas, depict alternatives, as so forth.  There are landscape design specific software packages available that allow you to manipulate photos, changing structural appearance and adding softscape and hardscape elements from their digital library.  DesignWare is one example.  These packages are excellent tools.  You can create very realistic renderings of what a landscape will look like with some changes and additions.  However, the good packages tend to be expensive.  If you are into this method of designing they are probably well worth the investment.

Even without these software tools, you can use digital photos as part of your presentation.  You simply overlay graphic elements and label them to show what you want to communicate to the client.  I primarily use PowerPoint for this.  The process is relatively simple.

1. Open PowerPoint and on a blank slide, insert the digital photo you want to work with.  Resize it to fit the slide as necessary.  Crop the photo to eliminate unneeded portions or to focus on a specific area.
2. To highlight an area of the photo with an overlay, insert an appropriate shape on top of the photo.  You want to select the right shape for what you are trying to highlight or emphasize.  PowerPoint offers a myriad of shapes.  You will find them under the PowerPoint Insert command.  The basic ones, circle, oval, square, rectangle, and triangle usually do the job.  Do not worry too much about getting it in exactly the right position.  You can resize it and position it more carefully later.
3. The shape will be drawn using the default colors for new shapes within PowerPoint.  You will probably want to change this, so simply right click on the shape and select Format Shape from the pop-up menu.  This can be the tricky part.  You need to select a fill color and shape outline color that will stand out on the particular portion of the photo you are working on.  If you are highlighting green plant material, you might select a orange, red, or violet so the color stands out.  Once you choose the color, you want to set the transparency of the shape color so that the underlying photo shows through.  This will vary from photo to photo since the original picture may be very bright.  Try different transparency settings.  Usually something in the 30% range will work fine.  Again, you can readjust this later if you want.
4. Once you have the color and transparency set you are ready to position the shape more carefully.  Simply click on the shape.  “Handles” will appear on each corner and each side of the shape.  Put you mouse pointer over the handle you want to move and slide the corner or edge in the appropriate direction.  Repeat the process until the shape covers the area of the photo that you want to highlight.
5. Any final adjustments to color or transparency can be set by right clicking on the shape and selecting Format Shape to reset the color and transparency.

You can add text directly to the shape if it is large enough.  If you do this, you may need to adjust the text color.  You can also use PowerPoint to add a separate text box and an arrow to explain the shape.  Any text or arrows may need to be formatted with colors that will standout over the digital photo.  You can repeat this process to add more shapes and text as needed.  A sample of a photo I modified for some design ideas is shown below.

The question you may have is why or when would I use this.  I sometimes use this approach at the ideation stage.  I make several copies of the slide with the picture and then modify them with overlays that roughly depict my ideas.  I have used this approach to highlight areas that need major work and for areas where there will be a major change or addition.  For example, a hedge that needs to be removed.  I simply use a picture of the hedge and put and rectangular box over it with appropriate text describing how the hedge will be removed and what will replace it or what it will open up.  You can also use the shapes to depict new objects.  For example, a rectangle for a fence or wall or a triangle for an evergreen tree.

For those who may be more adventurous, you can draw shapes to represent walkways, patios, and other objects by simply positioning them so they look somewhat flat, as if they are being viewed from the same angle the photo was taken from.  You have to think a little bit about the perspective of the photo when you do this.

This technique is a simple way to leverage any digital photos you may have taken of the client site.  You add value for the client by overlaying the photos with information that depicts your ideas, insight, and thoughts.  The photos then become valuable material for inclusion in your reports or proposals to the client.

“One Pagers” – A Great Client Presentation Tool

I my last post I discussed using thumbnail bubble diagrams for a more graphic representation of the potential design.  I mentioned that one of the benefits of this approach was for soliciting client feedback.  Since the bubble diagram is more visually descriptive, the client can get a better sense of how the areas fit and work together.

Another adaptation of this approach is to overlay a copy of the base plan with text and graphic elements that you can use to do any or all of the following:

• Summarize key findings
• Identify major issues
• Emphasize major opportunities
• Review design goals
• Highlight priorities
• Raise questions or identify decision points

Essentially, what you are creating is a one-page presentation that has some of the elements of a bubble or functional diagram on top of the base plan.  The purpose of this document is to solicit client feedback, get client agreement, or pose questions for the client.  Depending upon what the content is and your objective, what you include may be text, simple graphics, pictures, or drawings.  For example, an area with a major opportunity to capitalize on the view may be depicted with an arrow pointing in the direction of the view and some limited wording.  Design goals could be listed in a text box with bullet points.  Problem areas could be a digital photo cropped and reduced in size to fit on the appropriate spot on the base plan.  You can use color coding and/or different shapes to emphasize unique elements or points you want to cover with the client.  Obvious choices such as red for problem areas make this type of visual tool easy for the client to understand.

For small simple jobs, this approach may work for presenting your estimate for work.  In addition to providing the client with the cost estimate and contract, you could include a simple one-page graphic describing what needs to be done and why.  A simple devise such as this can be extremely effective for communicating with the client.

For larger jobs or situations where you cannot get everything to fit on one page you have a couple of options.  One is to make multiple copies of the base plan and put different content on each copy.  For example, opportunities on one page and problems/issues on another.  If you are working on a large property, you can crop the base plan graphic and do a page for front yard and a page for back yard to present the information for each area.  Very large or complex properties may use even more pages.

I still like format reports / proposals for final submission to the client when my design program is complete and I am ready to get client approval.  For smaller jobs or situations where you need to give an interim update or meet with the client to resolve issues, get clarification, etc. the one-page presentation graphic is a great tool.

Thumbnail Bubble Diagrams – A More Complete Portrayal

I discovered an interesting spin on bubble diagrams while researching validation ideas.  The technique is to use a mini thumbnail picture to represent each space or bubble.  For example, a grilling area could be shown as a small bubble with a picture or drawing of a grill.  The ides is to graphically represent each functional space with a graphic or picture.  These graphics can represent function or be conceptually representative.  For example, if you have an inspiration idea such as a water feature, you include a picture of it within the bubble.  Two sample thumbnail bubbles are shown below:

Small Representative Graphic Thumbnail Bubble

Small Picture Thumbnail Bubble

Bubbles are still bubbles.  Instead of being empty bubbles labeled with text, they have pictures or graphics to help represent the function.  So what is the purpose of doing this?  I think they provide an additional level of representation or portrayal of how the design will function.  When the bubbles are positioned and finalized into a full thumbnail bubble diagram you get a better sense of the component parts and how they might flow together.  I think they also contribute to ideation in that you can have a better feel of how the areas will look as one space.  A small sample bubble diagram using this technique is shown below:

Thumbnail Bubble Diagram

Another benefit is that if you want to use this to solicit client feedback, they are going to give the client a better feel for the overall thought process and how the spaces will interact and look together.  In the example above, the client would be able to get a very accurate idea of how the water feature will be a focal point in the space.

This technique is again something where you can reuse the materials.  The small thumbnails should be created as individual bubbles and saved.  I created most of mine in DynaSCAPE and exported them to jpeg files.  Some were created in PowerPoint.  I typically use PowerPoint to create the thumbnail bubble diagram since it is easier to manipulate the pieces and then subsequent add arrows, text, or whatever other diagrammatic tools I choose.

Repurposing Mind Maps

As mentioned in previous posts, I feel very strongly about the benefits of using mind maps.  They a great for taking notes, creating project plans, ideation, brainstorming, and other tasks where you need to connect unstructured information.  Where I think they get useful is when you start revising them and restructuring them to show new linkages and connections.

After a mind map is created, you can always add to it.  If I create one to take notes about a site, I may think of something that needs to be added later.  In addition to making minor revisions or additions to my mind maps, I usually convert them to an electronic format.  I primarily use Microsoft PowerPoint or Visio.  When it is electronic I can manipulate it easier which is where I get some of the really benefits.  A site analysis mind map will almost always be drawn with first level bubbles representing areas.  The subsequent bubbles note or expand on site features in the corresponding area.  When my initial mind map is complete and in PowerPoint or Visio, I frequently make a copy of it on another slide or sheet and revise the diagram to show another point of view.  I might revise it to put items in priority groups or revise it to show groups of similar issues, problems, opportunities, etc.  These types of changes are usually very fast and easy since it is electronic.  If the mind map is not too big you can also simply build a new one from scratch showing the different point of view.

Another technique that is again easy and quick is to color code the bubbles on the original mind map.  You could use green, yellow, red shading for example to represent a priority sequence.  Another example would be to color code problem areas and opportunity areas differently.  Within PowerPoint or Visio it is quick to use the format paint button to duplicate the color or other effect you are using.

You may sometimes have a need to combine two or more mind maps.  For example, putting the mind maps for site analysis and client needs into one mind map may be very useful from the standpoint of looking at the similarities and connections of data.  In these cases I find it is usually a judgment call as to whether it is easier to start from scratch or to cut and paste items from the two originals into a new mind map.

I have mentioned in previous posts that there is specialized software just for mind maps.  A list of packages can be found on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mind_mapping_software].  There may be advantages to some of these packages in the different automatic formatting and layout options they provide.  In most cases I find that PowerPoint or Visio are more than adequate.

The point is to look at the information from different points of view and perspectives to analyze all the aspects of the site, client, or whatever you are reviewing.

Words and Phrases as Visual Tools

Words can be a very powerful graphic tool also.  They can be used to solicit responses from clients and be used to produce responses from clients.  I think of this in some ways as one of the HGTV effects.  If you look at the titles of any of the landscape design shows you will see titles such as “Stylish Mediterranean Patio,” “Spacious Outdoor Getaway,” or “Intimate Backyard Oasis.”  These titles help us picture what the result might be before we even see it.  You can use words the same way with clients.

First, I always listen for verbal queues from clients.  If they use words such as cozy, open, contemporary, etc. those give me clues as to their preferences and a way to validate their preference in my design.  Second, there are sometimes words you can use to create a picture for a client.  If you use a word and the client begins using it also, you have established a common ground of understanding.  For example, I may use the term “welcoming” to refer to a front entryway.  If the client uses the same word later in the conversation, I have made a connection that I can use in my design.

Whenever I do find specific words that I can identify as important to clients and their needs I try to use those words in any drawings or plans that I provide them.  The title on a drawing, for example, may be “Flexible Outdoor Entertainment Space” or “Multi-use Patio”.  This simply reinforces our communications and mutual understanding of what the needs are and what the desired outcome should provide.  Even if I do not come up with a client inspired wording, I will create my own to make the concept come alive and hopefully inspire the client to accept it.

I also try to user the specific words or phrase within any other correspondence, proposals, or working documents.  Again, this is to reinforce the concept.  The shared vision can become real in the client’s mind just by reading the words.

Space Layout Demonstrations

One way to give a client a feel for their new design is to physically layout the shapes and areas on-site.  You can use rope, hose, cord and stakes, Popsicle sticks, paint, chalk, or anything else that can be easily seen on the ground.  I have also seen different color tarps used.  They were folded into the appropriate size and laid out to simulate different outdoor spaces.  The purpose of this exercise is to allow the client to visualize the space and the connections with the residence and other areas of the property.  I have also seen designers use this technique to verify that their paper designs are actually going to work as designed, making sure all of the elements fit onto the property as planned.

The value of this technique depends a lot upon what you are laying out.  If you are laying out bedding your primary concern is appearance.  You may also validate that the edges will be easy to maintain.  Curves are hard to mow around and sharp angles are difficult to mow into.  Visual appearance is the primary issue and marking the proposed edges using one of the techniques listed above will serve this propose.

For laying out livable outdoor spaces, this method accomplishes the goal of demonstrating the layout but it has shortcomings.  First, there is no sense of enclosure if any of the area edges will have features that are above ground.  Second, it does not address any changes in the terrain if any of the areas are going to be terraced or raised.  Third, there are no furnishings, accessories, or other amenities within the space so it is hard for the client to ascertain usable space.  Lastly, there is no sense of occupancy other that the clients.  They do not get a sense of how the space will be filled with guests and how people will move around and interact.

In an analogous situation, I have seen lighting and irrigation specialists bring out kits to show clients how their products work and what the installation options might be.  Portable light units that run on 110 volt or batteries can provide an effective demonstration of outdoor lighting options.  Understanding how the sprinkler heads perform and are installed can help the client make a better decision about their system.  There just is no kit for a designer to bring out and show a client how their outdoor space will look, feel, and perform.

If a designer wanted to go to some extra effort, they could sting up tarps or sheeting to simulate fences or walls.  An assortment of cardboard boxes could simulate bushes.  Stacked boxes could be arranged to simulate taller shrubs or a low wall.  There are probably dozens of other items you could use to simulate outdoor components.  It is simply a matter of imagination and the time and motivation to go to this extra effort.  Which raises a consistent question throughout this blog; “When does the extra effort and time to validate the design become justified?”

Positioning Spaces — by Function or by Location

Site analysis often uncovers or reveals spaces that are ideal for specific functions or should be capitalized on.  For example, a backyard view of a nearby lake.  Often the reverse is discovered.  There may be spaces that are noisy, windy, or hot.  We discover and document these situations during our site analysis.  Concurrently, we work with the client to discover their requirements.  With all of information gathered and documented, we begin analyzing and synthesizing data and developing design responses.

The question that arises is where and how to go about positioning spaces.  Do you begin with bubble or functional diagrams with interconnections and manipulate them into desirable locations and away from undesirable ones?  Or do you position spaces in desirable locations first and then weave in related spaces and connections?

The first approach puts emphasis on adjacency and function.  The later method puts emphasis on optimal placement as determined by site factors.  I do not believe that one approach is better than the other is.  Which you choose or if you use both is a personal choice.  What is important is that the design response be validated against the requirements.  If the requirements are not met, a new design response must be found.

A big part of analysis and synthesis is resolving conflicts.  In the previous example of an ideal lake view, it may not be practical to place a main patio or deck in a position to take advantage of the view.  The design response may become a destination terrace or seating area away from the main outdoor space connected by a walkway.

Coming to a final design solution requires thorough site analysis, full understanding of client requirements, thoughtful analysis, and the patience to synthesize all of the data.  That done we use our knowledge of design to create and test responses that meet the requirements and pass the constraints and opportunities developed through our analysis.

The positioning of spaces or functions is less a matter of how and more an issue of why.  Validation tells us why we made that decision.

The Advantages of a Socially Active Client

There are advantages to having a client who has spent a lot of time experiencing different outdoor spaces.  A client who often spends time on the patio or deck of neighbors, friends, and relatives has had the opportunity to see different outdoor spaces and observe how they work in those circumstances.  This can be a huge advantage for the client and for the designer.  This type of client can be very forthcoming about what they like or dislike, what they think works or does not work, and other opinions that can make it easier for the designer to create their outdoor space.

Everyone is different.  What the people in the client’s social circle have done may not necessarily be the client’s tastes.  What the client gains though is the experience of seeing how different outdoor spaces with varying sizes, shapes, features, etc. function in the real world.  Ideally, they can translate those learning experiences into a useful set of needs for their designer.

This type of client brings a wealth of experience to the table during initial discussions with the designer.  What can the designer do for the client who has not had this experience with a variety of outdoor spaces?  Is there a way to simulate the experience or allow a client to test drive different environments so see how they work and function?  If the designer offers a client an opportunity to “test-drive” or preview some potential spaces they can help the client identify what will or will not work for them.

One obvious solution is to take the client on tours of previous client sites.  A previous client may be willing to let the designer show their work to prospective clients but it is unlikely that they are going to want the designer running tours while they are actually using the space for a social event.  Designers working for firms that have their own showrooms or outdoor display areas have an advantage with readily accessible sample spaces to show clients.  Again, these may not be ideal for conveying how the space would function in different contexts but they do give the client some sense of space, style, layout, features, etc.

Another available option is to visit commercial outdoor spaces.  Although this might sound a bit off beat, there are a number of potential places where clients could experience different types of spaces to get a sense of size, layout, style, and other key factors.  Restaurant outdoor dining areas come to mind as one potential source of inspiration.  Hotels and resorts may be another easily accessible source.  There may be areas in public spaces such as municipal buildings, libraries, etc. that are set up for outdoor usage and can be toured for purposes of evaluation.  There may also be some accessible commercial spaces that have areas set up for employees.  Visiting any type of public area when it is in use also provides feedback about capacity and flow of people.  An additional benefit of touring these types of sites is the ability to evaluation different hardscape and softscape materials.  The designer can turn these types of tours into a learning experience and idea generation session.

Given that not every client has a wealth of experience in seeing numerous outdoor spaces firsthand, a designer should be prepared with various tour options to expose potential clients to ideas and concepts that will help them understand their own needs and preferences.  As a designer acquires more clients they have the opportunity to expand their list of references and potential “showcase” sites to tour.  However, a designer should keep an eye out for other potential “wells of inspiration” to solicit ideas from their prospective clients.

When the designer is previewing potential “tour stops”, it would be a good idea to take photos and document what the client can expect to see.  Having this information stored, cataloged, and accessible will make it easier to plan future tours for other potential clients.  Another advantage would be the ability to assemble a document or web page with a “self-guided” tour that potential clients could use to either preview ideas or go back and re-evaluate what they have seen.  If a client could preview ideas on a web page and then actually go see a physical space with features they are considering, they have an opportunity to evaluate the ideas and subsequently discuss them in more detail with the designer.

The objective is to make sure the client’s needs are fully identified.  Giving the client more information and more opportunities to see and experience designs firsthand can make the process easier and hopefully more thorough.

Elaborating and Reducing Data with Graphic Tools

A designer has to work within three spheres of information and constraints.  Those three are:  the client’s needs which includes the performance or functional requirements, the context of the site, and form or design concept.

The functional or performance requirements sphere includes items such as:

• Budget
• Goals and Objectives
• Priorities
• Preferences
• Space requirements
• Relationships between spaces
• Maintenance preferences
• Access needs
• Environmental considerations

The site context sphere includes items such as:

• Site location and orientation
• Zoning
• Community or neighborhood covenants
• Climate (regional macro)
• Climate (micros)
• Neighboring buildings
• Topography
• Geology
• Soil conditions
• Access for vehicles and pedestrians
• Existing hardscape
• Existing softscape
• House architecture
• Views (inward / outward)

The form / design sphere includes items such as:

• Zoning constraints
• Community or neighborhood covenants constraints
• House architecture
• Enclosure (screening)
• Climate control
• Image / style preferences
• Lines of force
• Regional / local style

These are not exhaustive lists.  Each list could be expanded and elaborated upon.  Also, every project can have unique elements.  However, within these examples, there are obvious areas of overlap within the three spheres.  It is also obvious that the designer has a great deal of information to manage and synthesize.  This is where I believe graphic tools become extremely important to a designer.  Graphic tools help manage the volume of data and help the designer make sense of it.

Many of the elements within in these three spheres can be quantified or represented with hard data.  Some, such as zoning or covenant restrictions establish constraints or limits.  Each information element should be captured and represented as clearly and succinctly as possible.  Graphic representations are an excellent way to do that.  The technique, tool, or method will vary depending upon the type of information.  The fundamental purpose is to summarize the data so it is meaningful and can be easily assimilated.

There is a paradox within this process.  Gathering all of this information and data is a process of elaboration.  However, by elaborating you are seeking opportunities and solutions within the project.  Summarizing the information is an exercise in reduction.  Reducing the data to its essence aids in decision-making.  You have to gather the data to find the opportunities and you have to summarize it to make the best decisions.

Summarizing information makes it easier to manipulate and work with.  It easier to find relationships between data elements.  Common problems can be identified and grouped.  Elements can be combined to create new possibilities or opportunities for creative design solutions.  The trick is to have the data reduced to a volume that is easily viewed, manipulated, and understood.

As a rule designers are very good at using visual diagrams and drawings to represent and present solutions.  These visuals are used to as problem solvers.  They are presented as solutions to the client’s needs and issues.  The use of graphic tools by a designer during the analysis phase will allow them to use visuals as problem definers or problem identifiers.  This is a very different mindset for many designers.

When graphic tools and visuals are used both ways; problem definition and problem solution it becomes much easier to evaluate the two sets side-by-side and validate that the design solution addresses the problems and needs of the client.  This is the ultimate goal.  I realize that gathering all of the data and summarizing it graphically takes time.  However, having the validation that issues were addressed in the design solution will result in much higher client satisfaction.

Validate the Softscape Materials Too

I was part of a conversation last night about plant materials and how their location can adversely affect them.  One of the participants described a long variegated hedge that was positioned under a tree canopy.  They said that both ends of the hedge were variegated as they were suppose to be but that the middle portion was pure green due to the overhanging tree.  Someone else pointed out that part of the value of a professional designer was that they should have put some thought into the plant materials and verified that they were placed correctly for water, soil conditions, and sun exposure.

I think that is a good point and I am sure many designers instinctively know to do this.  One of the things I like about the graphics design packages that operate in layers, like DynaSCAPE, is that the plant materials can be placed in the sequence of coverage.  Thus, the display of trees will overlay or overhang lower understory plants.  The designer should make sure that the plant materials are correct for the location when they are installed and look forward in time to see the impact of plants that will grow substantially and potentially overhang other plants.

This was one of the advantages I foresaw in using a 3D virtual design.  If the software design tool supported “growing” plants over time there would be an excellent opportunity to review plant placement and look for potential problems.  Depending upon the sophistication of the application the ability to apply lighting effects for sunlight would potentially emphasis any long term shadowing effect on understory plants.

Validating the softscape materials placement seems very obvious but I think reviewing placement for long term impact is not only important but also a valuable client service benefit.