What if Design Validation Doesn’t Work?

What happens if your design validation efforts do not produce an acceptable design.  How do you deal with a situation where your design misses the mark; the client does not like it or they don’t think it will work for them.  Everything I have been put forward in this blog has been focused on making sure you understand the client, knowing what they want and need, analyzing the data, and making sure you are focused on what really needs to be done.  What if the client is not impressed and just outright says it is not what they want?  How do you recover?  Can you recover?  What went wrong?

Following a design process increases the likelihood of success but it does not guarantee it.  The design validation process requires you to do your due diligence and ask questions, research, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and draw conclusions that lead you to a design concept.  It does not guarantee that the design concept is correct or will be accepted.  It is still possible to have miscommunications with the client.  It is possible to misunderstand.  It is even possible that the design concept is just wrong.  It is more likely that something else is going on, which I will come to below.  A major component of the design validation process is client communication.  Involving the client early and often avoids surprises and disappointments at the end.

I tend to think clients reject a design for one of three reasons.  First, something happened.  The client lost their job or has some other financial emergency and they want to cut their expenses.  Second, the client has buyer’s remorse and wants to step back and rethink what they are doing.  Third, they truly don’t like what you created or do not think it will work.

In the first case, you may have some clue if something happened.  There may be cases like the current economic situation where everyone is cutting back.  If you suddenly find the client is available at any time of day, that may indicate they lost their job or something else is going on.  All you can really do is be honest with the client.  Ask them if something happened or if there was a change in their situation.  You can point to all you have done for them and say that you have made a good faith effort to understand what they want and tried to design something that would meet their needs.  Depending on the client, this may or may not work.

Buyer’s remorse is much harder to deal with.  You have to sense this as an issue.  If you have followed the process and have all of your documentation, you can walk the client through your findings.  You can point to what they said, what you found, how your evidence supports that the design will meet their needs.  You have to resell the concept and support it with what they said and what you found.  Sometimes this works and sometimes is does not.  Having good client management and people skills helps.  You have to be empathetic and understanding but you have to drive home your findings and what you have done to validate your work.  Again, constant communications with the client over the course of the project should have headed this issue off.  Pre-design review of the design program and preliminary designs should also help curtail this problem.

In the last case where the client truly does not like the design and you have no other evidence to indicate any other issues, you have to find out what went wrong.  There are many ways this situation can play out.  If the client really feels your design is totally off base they may be angry and feel you have wasted their time and money.  Occasionally a client may feel remorse that there was something they didn’t convey to you or that they didn’t give you enough guidance.  The first step in understanding what went wrong is to deal with the current state of the client.  If they are angry, you may have to let them cool down.  The only way to find out what does not work in the design is to talk through it.

To talk through the design you have to go back to your basic interviewing and questioning skills.  You need to find out what the client does not like or what they think will not work.  If you have done all of the background research and analysis you can most likely argue any point they raise.  However, you don’t want to get into an argument.  What you are looking for is a way to modify the design so that it is acceptable or to help the clients convince themselves that the design is right.  Many times the client is too close to their own situation to see what they really need.  They may have asked for something directly or indirectly without realizing it and when you provided it, they were taken off guard.

There are many permutations of things that can happen, how clients will react, how a follow-up discussion will go, etc.  It is easier to avoid the situation in the first place.  There is nothing you can do about a change in the client’s financial situation.  However, you can head off buyer’s remorse and head off clients rejecting your design by following the validation process and maintaining regular client contact and communication.

3D Visualization is the Key to Phased Designs

Phased approaches to landscape design are fairly common.  In today’s economy they are more common.  What they usually refer to though is doing one area at a time, and going year by year, to complete an entire yard or landscape.  With this approach the backyard, or entertaining space, is usually first.  The front yard, adding curb appeal is usually second.  Any remaining areas are done at the end.  From the designers perspective this works well because you focus on one area at a time and move on from one space to the next.  Assuming you do a good job, you have repeat business.  However, from the client’s perspective this approach may have some disadvantages.

First, doing the backyard entertaining space first is usually the most expensive phase.  Granted there are benefits of having a completed entertaining space.  However, ignoring the front yard and curb appeal does not add to the value of the client’s residence.  The client, in many cases, would be better served by spreading the design program out with a combination of changes that add value and meet long-term entertaining and livability goals.  There are challenges to this approach though.

First, you have to understand the client’s budgetary constraints in terms of total expenditure and year-to-year expenditure.  Knowing that will tell you what you have to work with in total and for any given year.  The second challenge is in allocating the budget into spaces and components that will add value and provide the client with some immediate usable improvements.  A third issue is that the setup for future improvements may leave areas incomplete, barren, or in a “under construction” state.  What was and is a landscape design project is now also a multi-year project encompassing value management, client expectation management, construction management, and a number of other issues.

Managing a client’s expectations and setting priorities is difficult enough in a single space.  When you are spreading work out over multiple areas and the client has to make choices about what is going to be done this year versus next year and the year after in multiple areas it becomes even more difficult.  Even worse is getting the client to accept or live with incomplete areas.  Maybe a concrete pad has to be poured one year for an outdoor kitchen that will be installed the following year.  Some clients may have the patience to live with this but most will not.

Having an overall vision or goal is imperative in this type of project.  You can’t possibly get a client through a multi-year phased build out that is spread out over various areas without having a vision established that the client accepts and knows will be achieved.  This type of client buy-in and acceptance is a key component of validation.  The client has to know what to expect in any given year.  They have to know what they will have and what they will have to live with from one year to the next.

I think the 3D design approach can be a very valuable tool in these cases.  If your design program depicts the final result, you have a realistic 3D walkthrough that you can use to show the client during the design review.  However, you can also use that design to “back track” year by year and depict what will be achieved each year and what the client will be living with until the next year’s work is completed.  Within the 3D design software, you begin working backwards to show the state of the space at the end of each year’s work.  Once you have all of the separate year-by-year states you set them up sequentially to walk the client through them one by one during the design review.  These should be set up to show everything that is complete at the end of that year and how it will look.  The example I mentioned before of a pad for an outdoor kitchen can be shown in a phase design review as just what it is, a plain concrete slab.  However, you have the ability within 3D design software to show what the client could do with that space; add some pots, place the gas grill in the space, place a table and chairs, etc.  In other words, you show the client how they can survive and live with the space in a temporary state.

The design work increases because you have to show the client what they will have each year and what they can do with it.  Sometimes, the work is of a nature where the temporary results are just beyond improvement.  Putting in a pool for example often requires considerable time before the pool deck can be installed.  A client has to accept some period of “under construction” within the space in order to achieve their goal.  No amount of 3D modeling or any other design depiction is going to change that.

I think much of the traditional approach where areas are built out one at a time, is a result of two things.  First, it is obviously an easier approach for the designer and in many ways easier on the client.  However, a large part of the issue may be impatience on the part of clients and secondly a much easier economy than we have now.  If a client had $80K to spend on their backyard and front yard over two years in the past, they may have simply opted to spend $60K up front for the backyard and $20K in year two for the front yard.  In today’s economy that may not happen.

A more creative approach to allocating money within a budget that meets long-term goals over time is necessary.  Being able to show clients that their needs will be met over time is also necessary.  A new economy requires a new approach.  Validation is important but being able to show how that validated need will be met in multi-year project phases is crucial.  Selling the approach through creatively showing the client how they can live through a multi-year project is a key skill in surviving as a designer when clients are being more conscious of how they are spending their budget.  Being able to creatively show clients how they can be budget conscious and still meet their goals is a real asset in today’s economy.  3D visualization and validation are key components of that capability.

The Client Priorities Dilemma

Setting priorities with a client can be very difficult.  You not only face indecision but also intra-family squabbles over what is important.  There are many ways to consider priority.  You can look at is from the standpoint of importance to the client, severity of necessary repairs and maintenance, costs, value created, ease of implementing, and a variety of other perspectives.

What it really comes down to is for you to pick the major criteria and work with the client to have them make choices.  Choosing can be painful for the client.  Not only the stress of actually choosing but the “buyer’s remorse” after the choice is made.  In addition, as I will point out below, clients have to make tough choices about short-term wants and long term needs.

I find it is sometimes easier to identify all of the needs and then look at what the prioritization criteria could be for each one.  Assume the list of things needed is as follows:

• Patio / entertaining area
• Outdoor kitchen
• Pergola
• Built in gas firepit
• Perimeter planting / screening
• Drainage issues near residence
• Existing trees cutback / trim / fertilize / maintenance
• Existing beds cleanup / replant / mulch

You could go through this list and create prioritization categories such as:

• Cost
• Value created
• Client importance
• Long term maintenance issue
• Appearance improvement

What you would end up with is a table such as this where the X’s represent a criteria for that item:

	Cost	Value created	Client importance	Long term maintenance issue	Appearance improvement
Patio / entertaining area	X	X	X		X
Outdoor kitchen	X		X
Pergola			X
Built in gas firepit		X	X
Perimeter planting / screening		X	X		X
Drainage issues near house	X			X
Existing trees cutback / trim / fertilize / maintenance				X	X
Existing beds cleanup / replant / mulch		X	X		X

There are a couple of points to consider.  First, there are probably too many criteria for a client to consider at one time.  One approach would be to simplify by prioritizing based on cost, assuming the client has a limited budget.  If the total necessary work is $70,000 and the client only wants to spend $30,000, that would seem to be the quick way to prioritize.  However, that approach doesn’t give the client the benefit of knowing what all the issues are.  There may be items that create value for a low cost that they might disregard if they don’t know that criteria.  Similarly, some items may create long-term maintenance (and associated cost) issues if they are not dealt with now.

The second issue is what I call “wants versus needs”.  A client may want an outdoor kitchen, but do they really need it.  If they know that getting an outdoor kitchen may cost them thousands of dollars in structural repairs because they decided against dealing with drainage issues, they may think again about priorities.

This is really where you get into the heart of analysis.  There are no quick and dirty rules.  You have to look at the list of things that are wanted and things that are needed.  You then have to decide on what the criteria are that should be used to prioritize them.  Based on that, you need to decide what are the most important criteria to present to the client.  If you just want to sell your services, you give the client what they want and forget the rest.  If you want a long-term relationship, you help the client decide the best way to allocate their budget to meet their goals and protect the value of their investment in their home.

The Features / Functions / Benefits Approach

Years ago, I knew a person who was going through sales training for a major computer company.  They used an approach called feature/function/benefit selling.  In this approach you talked about the products features (what it has), functions (what it does), and benefits (why it is important).  I am going to use a built in gas fire pit as an example.

At a micro level, the gas fire pit has many features, functions, and benefits.  Here are just a few examples:

Feature	Function	Benefit
Runs on natural gas	Always available	No tanks to replace or refill
	Clean	No debris or ash to clean up
		No smoke
Electronic ignition	One button to turn on	Easy to use
Wire mesh cover	Keeps out debris	Ease of maintenance
	Safety	Prevents accidents

As you can see, features can have more than one function and functions can have more than one benefit.

As designers, we don’t often delve into the micro level.  Let’s look at the gas firepit from the macro level.  What are the features, functions, and benefits of having it as part of the design solution?

Feature	Function	Benefit
Fire	Creates ambience	Provides subtle lighting
		Establishes a gathering place
	Provides warmth	Makes cool evenings more comfortable
		Extends outdoor season
Built In	Safety	Cannot be accidentally toppled
	Natural gas fuel	Ease of use and maintenance
	Integrated into patio	Looks like a natural extension of the space

I have used the feature / function / benefit approach in a number of proposals and client presentations.  It is a great way to convey to the customer the benefits your product or service offering provides.  It justifies the benefits by tying them to specific functions and features.  The most difficult part is developing the three distinct components.  Features often overlap or are very similar to functions and functions often overlap or are very similar to benefits.

There are three reasons for bringing up the features / functions / benefits approach.  First, it can be useful in a design review or a client presentation.  It is a great tool to use to talk through your design explaining how specific features provide functions that provide benefits.  Second, it is very closely related to the design process.  When you are designing something, you have to look at it from the other direction.  What benefits do you want to create in your design?  What functions will provide those benefits?  What features do you include to provide those functions?

The table below shows how feature / function / benefit analysis ties into Client Interaction and the Design Process:

	Client Interaction	Design Process
Feature	What the client asks for	Client interview and observation
Function	How the client intends to use it	Client / site analysis
Benefit	Why it is important to the client	Design solution

When we get to the point of developing design solutions, we should be addressing how we are going to benefit the client by providing a space that meets their needs, provides the outdoor experience that want, and is aesthetically pleasing.  During the client interview stage, we are learning what the client wants.  Clients usually ask for features.  They want entertaining space or comfortable seating areas.  They are seldom asking for benefits.  That information is what we use to determine the functions we need to provide.  We do this during the client analysis and site analysis.  Creating or developing our design solution is where we translate the features and functions into benefits for the client.

The third reason for bringing up the feature / function / benefit approach is that it also supports the validation concept.  Being able to trace benefits in the design solution back through the functions that were developed through analysis and then back to the clients feature requests is an excellent validation method.  You get the added benefit of having a ready-made template of features, functions, and benefits for your client presentation.

Working with the Utilization Matrix – Part 2

In part one of this series I discussed getting the client to identify usage ranges; upper and lower limits of how many people might be involved in various uses of the space.  As a way to validate that data, I pointed out that you could count the X’s across and down.  Counting across gives a tally for each use.  Counting down gives a tally for each user or group of users.  Those two sets of data gave us a starting point for considering the potential consolidation of spaces to serve multiple needs.  The diagram below is the result of where we are at this point.

Utilization Matrix with Limits, Counts, and Consolidation Ideas

I mentioned prioritization and space requirements as two likely next steps.  Let’s look at space requirements first.  We have an upper and lower range for number of people for each function.  Using twenty-five square feet per person and a guide, we can calculate the average space requirement per use.  The graphic below shows our utilization matrix updated with the average square footage required by use.

Utilization Matrix with Average Space Requirements

There are a couple of things to keep in mind.  First, the active play area may not work well using a twenty-five square foot rule of thumb and an average usage.  We probably should find out what “active play” means and how much space the client thinks is appropriate rather than apply a formula (I am going to assume at this point the client wants at 20 by 40 square foot area for children’s play area).  Second, averages don’t always work well.  This is especially true in the smaller areas.  The uses at the bottom of the list happen to be the uses that have the highest frequency; one, two, or three times per week.  We should probably use the upper limit for as a guideline for those spaces since they occur often and there are quite a few of them.  Making some adjustments, we have a new Space Needed column with adjusted square footages:

Utilization Matrix with Adjusted Space Requirements

This creates an interesting new way to layer the usage as shown below:

Utilization Matrix with Space Requirements Sorted and Grouped

Allocating a specific amount of space to active play and using the upper limit of users for space requirements increases the space requirements per use but there is one important factor to keep in mind.  These spaces can serve more than one purpose in most cases.  Just because an area is set aside for sunning does not mean it cannot be used for space during a summer party with the neighbors.  The spaces overlap both in purpose and in reality as shown in the graphic below:

Overlapping Space Utilization

The question is if the active play area will be separate or will it overlap and serve as some of the overflow area for large groups:

Overlapping Space Utilization with Play Area Alternatives

We need at least 750 square feet for the combined group areas and 800 square feet for the active play area.  If the clients have that much space available, there really isn’t a need to prioritize from a space standpoint.  However, if space is limited, the client will need to prioritize and make decisions about how important that play space is and can it serve a dual purpose.  The point is, the utilization matrix gives us an analysis framework, but we still need to work through specifics with the client.  Those specifics include priorities and granular detail about the uses and users of the space.  It may be that the client’s definition of a large group includes many children.  In a large group event, those children would use the active play area, which would reduce the demand for the remaining necessary large group space.  Those are the details you have to get from the client, understand, and work into your space utilization analysis.

Keep in mind that there may be other reasons to prioritize.  Budget may be one of them.  That being the case, you could go through the same exercise and add a column for budgeted cost per use.  Any other criteria can be used to sort, group, or expand the utilization matrix.  There may be other criteria you want to consider.  Some examples include: distance from the residence, exposure to sun, need for privacy, noise, etc.  The graphic below shows the utilization matrix updated for usage by time of day:

Utilization Matrix Expanded for Time of Day Usage

This expanded matrix above may gives us ideas about requirements for lighting.  In may also provide insight into space positioning to either take advantage of the sun during the day or shade during the afternoon and early evening.  Any particular variation of the matrix expanded for some particular type of data may give you insight into an issue or factor you need to consider in your design.  Looking at a variety of issues may indicate conflicts that require the client to again prioritize what is most important to them.  For example, creating sunning area may use space that is significant for other uses that require shade.  The client has to decide how important that sunning area is versus forgoing comfort is other usage situations.

As you may have gathered, this utilization matrix was created in Microsoft Excel.  Once the basic matrix is complete, it is a simple matter to copy the worksheet tab to create a new or modified version of the original.  You can reuse your original matrix as many times as necessary to analyze all of the factors you think are important or crucial for the project.

The utilization matrix raises questions.  That is a good thing because it gives you the opportunity to get clarification from your client.  It also gives you information about relationships between how the space will be used and who is using within different contexts.  It may provide insight into how space adjacency should be applied.  There may also be insights into specific issues such as where you need to consider lighting, screening, and other design elements.

As with many other tools I have mentioned, a utilization matrix really only makes sense on projects of a certain scale.  However, once you hit that point, it can be extremely useful is sorting out how the client wants to use the space versus what you need to design to meet that need.  Once you have the basic structure of uses and usage it is easy to expand the matrix to evaluate other issues.