Client Feedback –A Key Validation Point

Do you follow-up with a client after the work is done?  This seems like a natural thing to do.  Even if you only do the design and someone else or the homeowner does the build.  Last year while initially researching how designers gather requirements and interact with clients, I included a question in my survey about follow-up practices.  The question was, “Do you have a specific policy or process for going back to a client after a design is implemented to get feedback about how the design is functioning for them?  If so, how long after the implementation do you solicit that feedback?”  Amazingly, one person responded, “No, but that is a great idea.”  I was shocked that a designer did not follow-up, even if for nothing else than follow-on work.

First, let’s deal with what follow-up should be undertaken.  Even if it is a design only job, I would follow-up within thirty days to see if the client has found a contractor.  If not, do they need any help?  If they are doing nothing, why?  I would continue to follow-up until I got an answer.  If they client does build out the design, I would still follow-up within thirty to sixty days to see how they like the implementation and get any feedback on the design.  Thereafter, I would touch base with the client at least once a year to keep my name in front of them, to make sure the design is still working for them, and to see if there is any new potential work or possible updating to the design.  For those who do build and maintenance, there is also opportunity to add to your regular business.

Why is follow-up important?  If shows our interest in the client as our customer and demonstrates that we value their satisfaction.  Getting feedback from the client about the design is also important for us to understand what we did right, what we might do better, and what we did wrong.  This is the classic “lessons learned” exercise.  Seeing the real world implementation and the direct feedback from the client is crucial.  Lastly, as said before, keeping our name in front of the client is important for marketing purposes and to develop future business.

There are other opportunities to gather client feedback.  Ask about your other business practices.  Was your proposal clear in the beginning?  Did you communicate with them often enough and in the right way?  Was your design and final report clear and comprehensive?  Did you help them make decisions effectively?  The client is the one source for improvement in our business practices and designs.  We have to listen to them.  Feedback may not always be positive.  When you do get negative feedback, it is important to recognize it and then act on it later.  Don’t react to it with the client.  Simple take the feedback and thank the client.  If it helps you in the future, you really will be thanking them.

Old School, New School; Is it the right school?

I read an interesting article I found online last night.  The article, “Sell Landscape by Visual Design”, by Susan Wessling, was published in Irrigation & Green Industry magazine.  It is now in their digital edition (http://www.igin.com/article-428-sell-landscape-by-visual-design.html).

The article is about using digital photos and photo imaging software to create design mock-ups.  The author describes the old school traditional approach of visiting the client and making your pitch.  However, she describes the typical resistance from the client, “we would hate to spend all that money and then find out that were not as happy with the look as we thought . . .”  The author describes this as blind faith selling.

The new school approach is to take some digital pictures at the client site, go back to the office, and use one of the many digital imaging software programs to mock-up a design.  In the author’s words, “Your potential customers don’t have to envision, they can actually see what they will be buying.”  The digital photo is used as a sales tool to close the deal.  The author quotes statistics from Drafix Software, makes or Pro Landscape, that “contractors close 90 to 95 percent of their sales leads when making this type of presentation.”

The article goes on to describe some of the software available and how some landscape designers are using it.  The article is from 2001 so there is a lot more software with much better capabilities available now.  Even though the article is fairly old, it is worth reading just for some of the techniques about how to use this type of software.

As you may have gathered from this blog, I am a big promoter and user of this technique and the underlying software.  I have used it in proposals, client reports, presentations, and in ideation and analysis.  My concern is that this technique, used as a sales tool, may hurry the design along without any underlying analysis.  My fear is that it will be used to circumvent the process to the detriment of the client.  I don’t think you can quickly mock-up a digital photo and say to the client, “Here it is.  This is what we will do for your landscape.”  We still need to go through the fundamental analysis process to make sure the design is right for the client.  Also, the digital mock-up may set an expectation for the client that is inappropriate or impractical.  Care must be taken with this approach to make sure you are presenting concepts not de facto decisions.

This approach does not necessarily require imaging software if you are into hand drawing.  I have mentioned Rick Anderson’s Whispering Crane Institute web sites before.  His Fotki.com site has dozens of outstanding images that show his work.  What I find particularly impressive is his approach of taking a digital photo and overlaying it with trace paper to build up a design.  A few examples are show below.

The link to Rick’s Fotki gallery is:  http://whisperingcraneinstitute.fotki.com/

The link to the photo gallery where these images are found is:  http://whisperingcraneinstitute.fotki.com/radgraphic2006/en-rjm_033006/

Finding Opportunities in the Three Spheres of Response

Traditionally, landscape design has focused on the functional and sensory spheres of response.  Those two spheres happen to be the most obvious and the ones that every landscape designer is trained to evaluate.  They are part of the designer’s initial analysis.  The designer evaluates the site and discusses the client’s wants and preferences.  How can you give the client what they want, functional, so that it looks good and matches their preferences, sensory.  The emotional response is still always there.  It just is not purposefully or directly addressed.  Every design evokes some emotional response in every visitor.  It may be a neutral response, but it is still a response.  By emotion, I am referring to a very broad realm of human response that may encompass feelings and thoughts that go beyond pure traditional emotions.

A second factor is the shear volume of design possibilities.  Within these two spheres, each taken individually, there are a vast number of creative opportunities.  Combine them and the creative possibilities multiply.  It is easy to look at only these two spheres and say, “I have so much to work with, I don’t need to consider anything else”.  The emotional sphere is left to happenstance.

The emotional sphere isn’t new.  It has always been there.  People respond to their environment in a range of ways.  Without purposefully addressing the emotional response a designer is ignoring an opportunity to add to the overall impact and impression of the design.

Confluence of Three Spheres of Concern

Within each sphere, we look for opportunities to create a design response.  This cannot be done out of context of the other two without loosing the power of combining all three spheres for greater impact.  We are going to look for potential ways to implement functional features with sensory impact that further stimulate an emotional response.  You might approach ideation from another direction; starting with emotion or sensory goals.  For example, how can I create or evoke the emotion of tranquility?  What functional and sensory elements will support or stimulate this?

Each sphere has a vast array of creative opportunities to offer.  Initially you filter or narrow those based on what you know about the client and the space.  Even with initial screening, the combinations of opportunities between and across the three spheres multiplies quickly.

Creating an emotional response of personal privacy, for example, has numerous possible design responses.  The functional responses might include isolating spaces visually, creating space barriers, or directing the view.  The sensory responses could include adding ambient sound from a water feature or adding distinct textures to create separateness through a different appearance within that space.

There are many opportunities within the overlaps in the spheres.  It doesn’t matter if you label or refer to them as sensory-emotional, emotional- functional, functional-sensory, etc.  The overlaps are a abundant source for ideation and design concepts.  The overlap of the overlaps, or the intersection of the three spheres, is where we are going to find and create the best designs.  That space is where all three spheres play in harmony.

Working in the Three Spheres of Response

I think the designs we create have to address three spheres of opportunity where we can create design responses that meet client needs and create client experiences.  Those spheres are Functional, Sensory, and Emotional:

The Functional sphere addresses the use of the space.  This includes active and passive uses.  What activities is a space used for?  What functions does it serve?  Is the space single-use or multi-use?

The Sensory sphere takes in the aesthetic and visual elements.  It is not limited to sight though.  This sphere includes textures that are felt, sounds that are heard, and scents in the air.  Sensational elements can come from within the site and from outside the site.

Confluence of Three Spheres of Concern

Traditionally, landscape design has been concerned with just these two spheres:  Functional and Sensory.  Very little is said or taught about creating an Emotional design response.  That is probably in large part because it is the most difficult to grasp, address, and incorporate into the design.  The Emotional component is about client response.  It is the human client response to your design and the way they experience that design after it is implemented.  That of course changes over time, from day-to-day, and sometimes even minute-to-minute.

An outstanding design meshes all three spheres.  The aspects of each are addressed and balanced against one another.  Where each of the three spheres overlap with the others there is a link, relationship, connection, or flow between the elements of those spheres.  The overlaps can be areas of challenge or opportunity.  In future posts I will be going into more detail about these three spheres and those relationships.

Tracing Requirements Through the Design Process

Using the various graphical and visual tools I have described is part of the underlying analysis required during pre-design.  They are used to help us understand the client’s requirements.  They are a means of ideation.  The tools aid us in creating the design concept that allows us to move on to the preliminary design.  In that process, they should provide evidence supporting our design decisions.

The data gathered and artifacts created during analysis should be used as a checklist and validation tool to review the preliminary and final designs.  Designs should be reviewed against any mind maps, bubble diagrams, functional diagrams, heat maps, client profiles, notes, drawings, etc.  In other words, review the designs against the client file.  Is the space adjacency correct?  Does the traffic flow setup as anticipated?  Are the space allocations what were required?  Do the colors and materials match the client’s preferences?  Will the design function in a variety of scenarios and circumstances?

This may seem at once obvious and logical.  Obvious in the sense that we check our work for completeness and accuracy.  Logical from the point that we go through a process of gathering data, analyzing it, synthesizing it, developing a design concept, and creating the design.  It only makes sense that all of the data supporting that process should lead to and support the design.

There are a couple of points to consider though.  Can you trace in the other direction; from design to your analysis and data?  Can you look at features and elements in the design and determine where the requirement for them came from?  Are there any elements of the design that are not supported by a specific requirement?  If so, why are they there?  Is it an unexpected bonus that was created serendipitously?

If we pass these tests, we should feel confident in our validation.  Other things can still thwart our efforts.  Clients can just not like a design.  Client circumstances can change and what was created one year and absolutely perfect can be non-functional the next.  Things happen.  Our intent should be to do the best possible job of validating that our design meets all client requirements and expectations.  The review process helps accomplish that goal.  It also provides one other ancillary benefit; it is the perfect review and prep for the client presentation.  If you have asked yourself every possible question about the design and why it is the way it is, there are few questions a client can throw at you that you will not be able to answer.

More Benefits of Analysis and Visual Tools

Throughout my posts, I have promoted the use of analytic, graphical, and visual tools.  My reasons:

• Better and more complete analysis of client and site data
• Generation of validation evidence through the analysis and results
• Creation of materials that can be used in support of and within client presentations and reports

Using the tools helps you analyze data.  Completing the analysis and justifying design decisions based on analysis of underlying data validates the design direction is right.  Some of the resulting visuals from the analysis make striking and persuasive presentation materials.

Another benefit of analysis is the self-communications it provides the designer.  Going through the analysis process generates an inner dialog where the designer is creating, reviewing, and critiquing their own thoughts and ideas.

Based on my own experience I find this productive for a couple of reasons.  First, having that inner dialog results in more thought and consideration of the issues and facts.  In short, it makes you more thorough.  Second, in going through the analytic review and inner dialog, I am much less like to lose sight of key design components and important details.  The inner dialog reinforces the component pieces of information and the resulting conclusions.

Analysis does pay off.  Self-communication is a big part of that.

Getting a Picture of Client Priorities

Every landscape design project has issues associated with it.  The classic one is budget.  You have to work within the client’s financial constraints.  Another classic is maintenance.  How much, and to what extent will the client tolerate maintenance of the finished landscape.  Clients are also concerned about comfort, aesthetics, flexibility, accessibility, and other issues.  There may be issues imposed by neighboring properties, easements, covenants, and so forth.

We get a sense of these issues from the client during our interviews and meetings.  They say things or refer to situations that help us understand where the client’s hot buttons are and what they are concerned about.  If you have the right client, are sensitive to what they say, and are good at sorting out the subtle nuances you could probably set the priorities for your client yourself.  However, sometimes it is helpful to ask the client for a little bit of introspection and ask them to specify exactly how they feel about certain things and what trade offs they are willing to make.

Sounds like a case for a survey.  Well, it sort of is.  When you get into the situation where you really need the client’s input on where the tradeoffs are, I think it is time for the “one to five ranking”.  The one to five ranking process allows someone to prioritize or identify importance or some other factor by assigning one of the five numbers to each of five choices.  You specify whether one or five is most interesting, most important, most concerning, etc.  The other end of the number scale is the opposite.

The numbers can only be used once, which forces choices and prioritization.  This process can be used with other numbers.  It seldom works with less than four choices or more than seven.  Beyond these limits, there are too few or too many choices.

This process can be effective for prioritizing an issue, spaces, or just about anything where you have multiple choices.  However, it is most effective for prioritizing across multiple categories.  For example you might set up the outdoor spaces to reviewed against some of the issues and constraints.  The following are two examples, one with five issues, and one with seven issues:

Table of Spaces vs Issues (5)

Table of Spaces vs Issues (7)

The objective is to prioritize the spaces against the issues.  You have the choice of doing this yourself if you feel comfortable enough about how well you know the client.  Otherwise, this is an exercise you need to work through with the client.  You or the client needs to assign the values one to five or one to seven in each of the rows to prioritize the issues for each space.

The results will look something like the following:

Table of Spaces vs Issues (5) with Data

Table of Spaces vs Issues (7) with Data

In the examples above the larger numbers, five and seven, are the highest priorities.  You can review these and look for patterns.  Where are there groupings of large and small numbers?  Is any column particularly high or low?  I sometimes used colored markers or highlighters to identify the patterns and identify the areas of high and low concern.  You are creating a “heat map” showing the importance of each issue and space visually.  The two heat maps from the data above are shown below:

Five Issue Heat Map

Seven Issue Heat Map

You will note how much easier this is to read and interpret.  The darker areas are the client’s priorities or concerns.  Even though we are using two more issues in the second visual, the results are very consistent.  The client does not have a high concern over budget.  Visual / Aesthetic Appeal is important as is Comfort and Flexibility.  Maintenance is entirely focused in three areas so overall it is not a major issue.

You will note that totals were added to the columns.  This can be important in helping to identify patterns.  You will note that in the five-issue analysis, all of the issues except budget had high scores.  Although there was some variation in the four other categories, there were all close.  That would imply the client has concerns in each category, just spread out over the different spaces.  In the seven-issue analysis, the totals are more distributed.  Budget and Privacy do not seem to be major issues.  Functionality was a clear major concern for the client.

These visual analyses give us a clear picture of where the design priorities need to be.  In the first case, Visual / Aesthetic Appeal, Comfort, and Flexibility.  In the second case, Functionality, Visual / Aesthetic Appeal, Flexibility, and Comfort.  In both cases we know not to focus on budget and to make sure we address the few specific maintenance issues.

Visual tools such as the heat map make design decisions much easier.  You have to establish the client’s priorities first; either by using your judgment or soliciting their input.  It is a worthwhile exercise that can help focus your design priorities in the right direction and provides valuable evidence that you are meeting the client’s real needs.

Adding “Wings” to the Adjacency Analysis

The space adjacency matrix that I have frequently discussed can be expanded to include additional information that can be useful in decision-making.  Factors that may affect groupings or positioning such as sun/shade, privacy, and so forth can be included to help with your analysis.

First, the question of how do you expand it.  The triangular analysis format has three sides.  In the examples I have shown, the flat vertical side to the left is used to list the spaces.  The two diagonal sides are to the right.  We can actually add on to those sides to create additional space for more information that can be important in our analysis.  The grid will look like this:

Blank Triangular Adjacency Matrix with Data Extensions

The upper right edge, the lower right edge, or both can be used to add on detail information.  The example above shows both edges being used.  The key thing to remember is that each box on these two diagonal edges only applies to the corresponding space that we are analyzing.  The descriptive boxes added to the two diagonal edges line up to particular spaces.  What you will potentially be listing is information or characteristics that apply to those spaces.  If you do add information to both edges, the intersections of the two sets of information are not necessarily relevant, but they can sometimes be informative.  More on this point later.

Before we go on, let’s look at some of the data sets you could potentially add on to your adjacency analysis.  You could add each space’s estimated size in square feet.  You could add sun, partial, or shade descriptors.  Additional items such as private, semi-private, or open may be useful.  You can add descriptors for breeze effect, occupancy data, furnishing needs, constraints such as maximum size, seasonal usage, and so forth.  You can also just use the descriptive space to detail what each space is going to be used for.  The point to remember is that whatever characteristics or attributes you list should be desired in that space.  We do not know where these spaces are actually going to be positioned, shaped, or sized at this point.  Any information we list is going to be used to help us make those decisions.  We do not know at this point of the actual space will be in a sunny or shady area or if it will have access to breezes.

I really does not matter if you list the characteristics or attributes on the form before you actually do the adjacency analysis.  In many cases, it may be less confusing to go the adjacency analysis first.  You can add one or more attributes when you are done.  Actually having the adjacency analysis complete may help you choose which attributes you should look at.

After adding the attributes you can look at patterns in the adjacency analysis and see how the patterns of adjacency relate to the attributes you have entered.  Here is an example:

Example Triangular Adjacency Matrix with Attribute Added

The adjacency analysis above is the same one I have used in other posts.  It has been extended with desired attributes for overhead cover versus open.  Items where this is applicable are coded Covered, Partial cover, or Open.  You can see the areas that require or suggest cover are grouped around an area with high adjacency requirements.  The one space with negative adjacency is the outdoor kitchen cooking area.  The open areas are clustered around areas with no adjacency requirements and the negative adjacency associated with the cooking area and fire pit.  What this suggests is first that the dining area and outdoor kitchen serve area are not only closely associated, they could potentially also share some sort of cover option.  They could potentially even be extended to provide some cover for the kitchen access.

Adding the additional characteristics or attributes to your space adjacency analysis is like putting various lens over a picture.  You can change the view or perspective to look at new design possibilities.  This format, with to two areas on the right edges allows for two different characteristics or attributes to be used at the same time.  Depending on the project, you may need to look at additional factors.  That being the case, there are a couple of options.  First, you can simple copy the space adjacency analysis and add one or two factors at a time.  Second, there are ways to add additional space for more factors

Use Visual Tools to Manage Client Expectations

An additional benefit of having more interaction with a client is having the chance to manage client expectations.  When we first meet the client and start beginning to understand their needs and requirements, we should try to clarify and understand their expectations.  Client expectations can take many forms.  They can have expectations about how their landscape will look, how they will use the space, how long it will take to make the transformation, what it will cost, how the process will work, and on and on.

Initial client meetings should address some of these expectations.  You can explain the process, timeframes, and many other questions.  Some of their expectations such as how the design will look, cost, and so forth will have to wait until further into the design process.

In the early stages, the biggest concern is identifying unrealistic expectations.  The client may have a picture in their mind of what they want that just will not work in their space.  They may have unrealistic cost expectations.  They could have expectations of their space being able to accommodate many more guests than is realistically possible or plant types that will not survive.  These types of expectations have to be caught early and reset to a more realistic level.

As you proceed through the analysis of your client and site data, you can begin creating some of the visual presentation tools that I have mentioned.  When you use these for client feedback and discussion, you are also giving the client information that will help level set and manage their expectations.  This can also reinforce things you have previously told the client.  For example, if the client had expectations about the size of the planting beds that you addressed early on, it would be a good idea to present a visual diagram showing how the space will be utilized in the best way.  This will further reinforce the new expectation.

The keys to managing client expectations are first, early identification of what those expectations are, and second, managing those expectations to the correct level through discussion with visual presentation from your analysis.

Adding Value with an Experience Concept

I have made numerous comments about the importance of creating a client experience in the design process.  I will try to explain why I think this is an important effort and why it adds value.

As consumers, we purchase at four levels:

• Disposables / Consumables – gasoline, tissue, food
• Products – televisions, music systems, appliances
• Services – design, medical, legal
• Experiences – that intangible “thing”

Within these categories there can be combinations and value-added.  Here are some examples.  Gasoline is gasoline except when the oil company offers different grades of fuel or tells you that their fuel as a super performance additive.  Gasoline begins to take on some of the characteristics of a product.  Tissue is tissue except that most of us ask for a Kleenex.  The product has become synonymous with the brand.  A music player that connects with a streaming music service has value added beyond the product because of the underlying connection to the music service.  The automobile with a built in connection to an emergency service has value added beyond the automobile itself because of the sense of safety and convenience the service provides.  We could go on with numerous other examples.

Experience comes into play at just about any level.  We may think of experience as something that we truly feel or live through such as travel or a concert.  Experience does require a human element.  An experience should be produced by something.  It may be visual, tactile, auditory, or appeal to any and all of the senses.  It should last some period of time.  How long will vary.  It should be memorable and powerful.  An experience should engage the person.  It may be passive, the colors or textures in a space, or it may be active such as the hidden bend in the walkway.  Lastly, the experience should extend or enhance the value of something else.  That hidden bend in the walkway that leads to a peaceful retreat adds to the value of the walkway.

In the typical landscape design project we have the disposable / consumable items such as mulch or annuals.  There are products such as the furnishings or outdoor kitchen components.  There are services such as the design, installation, and maintenance.  The experience has to be created in addition to these physical and service components.  The question is how.

I believe it fundamentally means starting with the context.  What are the characteristics, issues, and opportunities with the site itself.  Who is the client; what are their needs and values.  This context is going to create a gap between the existing situation and the design concept.  This gap, which is what the analysis is all about, will help you determine what experiences can be created.  I think this is where personas,  scenarios, and user stories can be very important.  They can help us visualize what those experiences can be and how they fit into the design concept.

Creating the experience will come from adding to the design concept in ways that impact those who will visit and use the space.  Some of the characteristics I mentioned before have to be added.  You have to add to the design environment the thing or things that will be memorable, powerful, and engaging.  They have to affect and impact people.  They have to last some period of time.  The intangible “things” you add to the design concept create the experience.  The experience concept extends the design concept.

Clients Give Us Few Chances for a “Do-Over”

Rick Anderson’s blog The Whispering Crane Institute has great material.  I came across one of his posts from May 2008, “Conceptual Design, yes Design has Meaning” that discussed their emphasis on the hardscape components of a design.  His point was they have to get them right; they cannot get a “do-over” at least not without substantial expense.

I think his point is well taken.  You can compare this to an architectural or engineering firm constructing a high-rise building.  They will make substantial efforts to validate, test, and verify every structural component due to the high cost and high risk of failure.  As landscape designers, we do not face that same level of risk.  We do have to get it right for the client though.

Getting major hardscape components right, meaning the right size, material, location, etc., is a major factor in the design.  Every effort should be made to validate the requirements surrounding those components.  They are going to require substantially more analysis and review that the softscape and aesthetic elements.  To date I have emphasized adjacency, space allocation, occupancy, and traffic flow as some of the components that need review and analysis.  There are other issues and conditions that need to be considered.  There are transitional issues of how the new space will interface with existing structures and hardscape elements.  Cost issues need to be considered.  Very few clients give us a blank check.  Every project is different and we cannot treat every project just like the last one.

Landscape design validation has to be a proactive process.  Every client project has to be treated with an open mind as to what is unique and what can be done to validate that it is done right.  To Rick’s point about “do-overs”, not only is hardscape unforgiving, dissatisfied clients are even more unforgiving.

Visual Tools for Discussing Space Needs and Utilization

One of the dilemmas that a designer faces is ascertaining how much usable space a client needs and then converting that into a practical method of soliciting a decision from the client.  It is helpful if the client has some idea of the range of occupancy that they typically have over the course of time.  It might be two to four people on the deck or patio the majority of the time.  However, if you consider occasional parties or large family events, you have to plan for accommodating those large groups.

One project I worked on was for a couple who provided this breakdown of their usage:

Description	Number of occupants	Percent of Usage	Required Usable Square Footage
Couple only	2	80%	50
Couple plus neighboring couple	4	10%	100
Neighborhood gathering	12	5%	300
Family event	5%	25	625

This is obviously a very broad range of usage.  The clients need to make a decision about how much space they are willing to live with and pay for.  I have found that tables of numbers really do not work.  I have tried adding columns showing the percentage change in size from one increment to the next.  I have added cost columns to show incremental costs.  Clients just cannot visualize how the size difference will affect them.  What makes it worse is that we are talking about usable space.  The client needs to allocate room for the table and chairs, conversation area, grill, pots, décor, and any other amenities they want to add.  Granted some of the space such as tables and chairs is accommodation space but it fixed space that is not flexible for rare large group events.

The technique I have had the most success with is using a series of canned plan views that I created in DynaSCAPE.  I used these to create visual space and occupancy diagrams.  These drawings are in different size and layouts.  They each contain some amenities such as tables, chairs, grills, conversation areas, etc.  I pick one that is closest to what I need to demonstrate for the client and then modify it as necessary.  If my canned plan does not have a spa and the client wants one, I can quickly update my DynaSCAPE drawing and use it for my demonstration of space utilization and occupancy.  A sample plan is shown below:

Canned Plan for Visual Presentation

The plan above is useful for demonstrations for several reasons.  It is six hundred square feet in total.  Each square is ten by ten or one hundred square feet.  That readily translates into space for four occupants using a standard of twenty-five square feet per person.  In this example, the table area will accommodate six.  The fire pit seating area in the upper left will accommodate at least four.  Two occupants could use the lounge chairs.  The rest of the space is open with the exception that the grill area could be limited if it is in use.  This plan is roughly three hundred square feet of open space and three hundred square feet of used space.

After prepping my canned plan, I export it from DynaSCAPE to a jpeg file to be imported into PowerPoint.  All of my canned plans are the same scale so I have some previous PowerPoint files that already have the appropriate symbols on them to show space and occupancy allocation.

In PowerPoint, I add colored circles and other rounded shapes to mark out occupancy.  Single circles represent twenty-five square foot space allocations for an occupant.  The canned plan above after updating is shown below:

Visual Space Utilization Presentation

With this graphic, it is easy to talk through the possible usage issues with the client.  You can visually see the impact of how guests will occupy the space and utilize the available area.

This technique is extremely quick.  DynaSCAPE allows you to quickly modify your canned plan for any special features.  Using PowerPoint for the color overlays permits you to reuse previous files you have created and quickly make modifications.

I find this type of visual presentation tool much more effective than the table of numbers.  It is much easier to get the client to discuss possible modifications or space increases because they can readily see the impact on their outdoor space.

More Client Contact and Interaction is Key

The transition to a new model that is driven by getting all requirements from clients and getting them right (validation) is going to be a challenge.  It is initially going to take more time than a traditional model.  I thing the one aspect that designers are going to have most trouble with is the increased amount of client contact, feedback, and interaction that is required.

This change is going to start in the initial client meeting.  If we are going to sincerely try to get to know the client and understand their motivations, we are going to have to spend more time with them than we have in the past.  The ideation process that has always been the designer’s realm is going to have to be brought to the beginning of the design process and should include the client.  We can use tours, photo or portfolio review, brainstorming, and other techniques to involve the client in ideation.  This will also increase the amount of time spent interacting with the client.

I believe a design process that includes validation has to be iterative.  We are going to need frequent client feedback.  The designer cannot go off in a vacuum and return a week later with a final design plan.  If design concepts are going to be proposed, analyzed, and tested we need client input to make sure we are on target.

A classic example of the old model is the HGTV show Landscaper’s Challenge.  Three designers are brought in to review a client’s needs and problems.  All three go off for a period of time and return to pitch their design to the client.  The client picks one of the three who then implements the design.  In many episodes, the client’s explanation of why they picked the winning design is something along the lines of, “They really listened to us and understood what we wanted.”  Usually, all three designs are good.  Each designer has reasons for their concept.  There are times when I think one of the other two designs is better.  The point is that going off and creating a design after a short visit with the client and tour of the site is a risky proposition.

In previous posts I have emphasize that designers need a broader set of skills for interacting with clients.  Being able to ask questions, facilitate a discussion, and observe inconsistencies are just a few.  Increased client interaction will make these skills imperative in order to get necessary feedback throughout the design process.

The most frequent comment I get when talking about this concept is the impact on the designer’s time and profitability.  Throughout this blog, I have emphasized reusability of materials as a way to leverage time.  I have mentioned techniques for presenting ideas visually to obtain the best possible feedback.  More time spent with a client means less time spent on something else.  In the end, creating the best possible design for a client is the real objective.  Satisfied clients provide referrals and references that increase a designer’s volume of business and their long run profitability.

Interpreting the Space Adjacency Matrix

Aside from what the adjacency matrix tells you directly about how spaces should relate to one other, there is sometimes useful information in the matrix as a whole.  One of the first things to look at is the overall density of the matrix.  How many of the squares have symbols versus how many are blank.  If you stop and think about it, the more blanks squares there are, the more freedom you have in your design.  There are fewer requirements to put one space close to another or limits on one space being distant from others.  The opposite issue is a very dense matrix with many code symbols.  In this case, you have less freedom and your design will be driven by the function relationships between the components listed in your matrix.  If there are more associations that are positive your design may require tight clustering of functions while a lot of negative associations imply more spatial separation of the components.

Another key visual clue in the matrix is a string of positive or negative associations for one particular space.  If one space has many negative associations you may even want to reconsider including it.  It really depends on what it is.  A fire pit for example may have many negative associations due to the smoke, ash, and other debris.  You could reconsider including it due to its negative impact or you could make a design change and specify a gas fire pit.  A space with many positive associations may imply that the space should serve as a central function or be a focal area in your design.

I have mentioned clustered associations in previous posts.  These tend to occur when related items are listed together in you descriptions.  A group of three related items will create a small cluster of positive association next to them at the left edge of the matrix.  You have the option of grouping them into one component and redoing the matrix or leaving them separate.  The choice really depends on if the component pieces need to be considered against the other items in the list.

An unusual case that you might see is the situation where one feature or space has no associations at all.  In this situation, you may want to go back and review why you are including it in your design.  There may be a valid reason but the fact that it is not associated with any other component is a warning.

After looking at these factors, which I consider to be a “macro” or high-level view, you should go space by space and reconsider any secondary factors.  You may want to look at how much space that function is consuming of the total, what the space is really being used for, any specific requirements for that space such as utilities or access, and anything else that might possibly impact your analysis.  One other factor that I frequently review is priority.  A space that has few positive associations and is a low priority is a candidate to be cut or postponed.

You can go through these review points at any time.  You can do them with your draft matrix to get a sense of how the overall layout will function.  You can make adjustments for subsequent analysis.  This may sound like you are managing the results.  Space adjacency analysis is an iterative tool that helps you reach logical and well thought out decisions.  The important point to remember is that creating the space adjacency matrix is not the objective.  The point is to use the matrix to make an analysis and validate the information you have available and make sure it meets the client’s needs.

Adjacency Analysis Matrix Tips and Tricks

Previous posts have discussed the value of the Adjacency Analysis or Interaction Matrix.  I recommended the triangular format since it eliminates space names overlapping with themselves and is easier to read and interpret.

When creating your matrix you need a description box for the space or feature name to the left.  The number of items you include on your list will determine how large your matrix will be.  Forty-five degree lines are drawn to create the intersection boxes so that each space name intersects with every other space name.  The result looks something like the following:

Completed triangular adjacency analysis

The matrix above has twelve spaces / features to analyze.  There are sixty-six boxes for possible interactions.  You can compute how many boxes you will have by using the formula (N*(N-1))/2 where N is the number of items in your list.  In this example, (12*(12-1))/2 = 66.  Obviously, the more items you have the more combinations you have to deal with analyzing.

I suggested in a previous post that it is sometimes useful to break spaces into two or more pieces.  The example above breaks the outdoor kitchen into a cooking area and a seating area.  This was done to help orient the outdoor kitchen within the space.  Since the cooking area has associated heat and smoke it has some negative connotations.  The serving area can be used as additional seating space for dining and can function as a serving area for other functions so it has possible positive linkages to other spaces.  You need to think about these as you create your matrix.  You may even have to redo the matrix to refine it with breakouts that are more detailed.

The reverse of breaking spaces apart is consolidating them.  The conversation area in the example above is closely associated with the fire pit for purposes of ambiance.  The matrix could just as easily have been created listing the space as Conversation area/fire pit effectively making into one space.  The benefit of this is to reduce the number of combinations to be reviewed.

When actually listing your spaces and features you should think carefully about the sequence they are listed in.  If you list a group of associated items together one after the other, it will create a cluster of positive adjacencies grouped near the left edge of the matrix.  Since they are listed together, their intersections are near the left edge.  Listing them together clusters the positive indicators together.  This is usually beneficial since it helps emphasize the need to associate and link those spaces or features.  If you list the items in different places in you list the positive associations are still there, they just are not clustered in the same way.

When reviewing the combinations, a few tricks will make it easier.  First, go one line at a time and look at all the possible combinations for that item.  I frequently use a ruler to make sure I am looking at the correct row.  Use the symbol code you choose to mark positive and negative adjacencies.  I also put a small dot in the squares that have no adjacency requirements just to confirm that I have reviewed that combination and found nothing for that square.  When I am done, I erase them.

Another useful technique for complex spaces is to create two matrices.  I have used this approach in large outdoor spaces that serve multiple functions.  For example, one matrix can deal with adjacencies for a pool area that has requirements for a pool, spa, cabana, sunning area, diving board, slide, casual dining area, outdoor shower, bathrooms, etc.  This matrix is prepared independently of the main outdoor patio area.  Any linkages between the two areas are used in determining how one space fits into or next to the other.  This technique can make the overall analysis less tedious and still produce the same results.

Adjacency analysis can be complex and can have many subtleties.  I suggest having some blank matrix sheets that you use to quickly sketch out a rough “thinking” draft to see how the matrix will work.  This will give you the opportunity to think through any consolidations or separations that might be useful.  Making the draft analysis first will save time in the end.