Finding Design Freedom in the Space Adjacency Matrix

An important result from a space adjacency analysis is the linkages between spaces that you find.  Spaces that are linked can often be treated as single units when you begin functional design or conceptual design.  An equally important finding is the lack of linkages.  White space in the adjacency matrix means design freedom; few constraints in how components can be arranged.

Imagine a client who wants a dining area, a conversation area, and a pool area.  Within each of these spaces are sub-spaces.  The dining area in this example is to have an outdoor kitchen and the table / dining area.  The conversation area needs to include a large gathering space around a fire pit, a table for games or a small group, and a smaller more intimate area for more individual or casual use.  The pool area must include the pool, pool equipment/storage space, lounging area, a cabana, and potentially other amenities such as a pool area kitchen/bar and outdoor showers.

The space adjacency matrix for this project would list the elements individually because they serve different functions.  However, if you think about it, every component of the pool area is going to have high adjacency requirements with all other pool components because everything is associated with the pool.  The conversation area with its three areas is also linked as are the dining area components.  The space adjacency matrix will reflect these relationships:

Initial Space Adjacency Analysis

What we are seeing is the interrelationships of the three areas and also a lot of white space.  Large areas of white space in a space adjacency matrix usually mean a lot of design freedom to position and arrange the areas.  On the surface you would think we are dealing with the relationship between three spaces not a dozen sub-spaces.

We could think about how we are going to functionally position and arrange these three spaces as large units.  However, you cannot entirely eliminate the details of arranging the individual components either.  There are a couple of issues to consider.  First, one or more individual components of the large space may require special attention or have a negative adjacency relationship with the other spaces.  A prime example of this is the pool equipment.  We don’t want to position the pump, filter, and heater near the other entertaining spaces.  If we update our adjacency analysis to reflect this, we can see that we still have quite of bit of white space to work with:

Space Adjacency Analysis with Specific Negatives

Second, you can perform space adjacency analysis within each of the larger components, but it is difficult to know how to functionally arrange those components without having an idea of the overall functional arrangement.  The white space we are dealing with effectively represents the relationships between the three areas.  Those areas need to adjoin one another in some form so they are contiguous.  If we highlight our space adjacency analysis with the portions of the matrix that impact each of the three areas we get a better sense of how they are interrelated:

Space Adjacency Analysis Highlighting Areas of Design Freedom

This becomes a chicken or the egg problem.  It would make sense to work on the overall functional arrangement first and then deal with the functional arrangement within the individual space components.  However, you still have to look for those negative relationships between the larger spaces that are created from the specific functional space components (i.e., the pool equipment).  At a macro level we have three space adjacencies to deal with.  Within each of those three spaces we have micro level adjacency issues.  Those micro level issues impact the macro level.

The problem we have not considered at this point is the client’s preferences.  In this particular example the three spaces each has the potential for having a fair amount of client preconception as to where the space should be.  The pool is an obvious example of this.  Many clients are going to want the pool prominently positioned so it is the first thing you see when you enter the space.  A few clients may feel differently and want the pool away from the main entertaining area, visible, but not integrated into the other areas.  Most clients are going to want the outdoor kitchen and dining areas near the house to facilitate food preparation and serving.  The conversation area is probably less likely to be subject to predisposition unless there is a particular place in the area with a great view or attractive is some form or fashion.  All of that white space gives us a high degree of functional design freedom within the constraint of how the client plans to use the space and how they see the space relationships.

Space adjacency analysis is not a science.  There is a fair amount of logic and common sense in the process.  You don’t put things next to each other that conflict.  However, you have to also think about the adjacency from the standpoint of the client’s preferences and perceptions.  As a designer you can figure out what makes sense and what does not.  The art is in understanding how the client wants the space to feel, perform, and look.  However, neither of these steps, logic or client preference, are mutually exclusive.  Nothing in the continuum between art and science precludes creativity.

When I first looked at this project the first thing I saw was the potential to integrate the outdoor kitchen with the pool area kitchen / bar.  There is a lot of potential to not only save the client money but also create a dual function space that could actually be used independently or in tandem.  As great as this concept might be it is subject to the client’s feelings and preferences regarding placements.

The link between validation and analysis is understanding and knowledge.  We have to know what the client wants and we have to use our experience and knowledge to analyze the needs and make appropriate design decisions.

100th Post in Landscape Design Validation – What’s Changed?

This is post number 100 for this blog.  The Landscape Design Validation blog started July 1, 2009.  This blog started with a simple premise: how do you validate that a landscape design will work for the client and meet their needs before construction begins.  Writing about this topic for the past eleven months has helped refine some of my ideas.  My interest in this topic stemmed from an independent research class topic that started in September 2008.  When I started that project, I assumed there might be a solution to this issue in virtual reality and 3D design software.  By the time this blog started ten months later, I had realized that there was not a readily available solution.  This blog began because I wanted to explore what the solution might be in terms of a process rather than a tool.  The following is a recap of how my thinking has evolved over the last eleven months.

At the time of my first post, I had already looked at our peers in landscape architecture and interior design.  I found interesting tools and approaches.  I continue to find design disciplines related to landscape design to be a rich source of ideas for analytical tools and approaches.  Other disciplines such as graphic design may have tools and approaches to offer also.  Design disciplines such as interaction design and web design have also provided me with many provocative ideas about designing for user experience.

When I started this blog, I had looked at virtual reality as a potential tool / solution to this issue.  I was very disappointed in virtual reality as a potential and practical tool.  Conceptually, there is a lot to offer.  The cost and time requirements to capture everything necessary to really and truly use virtual reality are staggering.  It just is not going to happen anytime soon.  However, a related technology, 3D landscape design software, looks very promising.  These 3D design tools cannot be ignored.  They are very powerful.  You have to be careful choosing which one you want to learn and use.  The learning curve is steep but the results are visually very powerful and compelling.

I still fundamentally believe that everything that can possibly be accomplished with validation starts and ends with the client and the site.  You have to know who you are working for, what they want, and what they need.  Want and need are two very different things.  Validation is all about requirements and requirements come from the client.  Anything and everything that can possibly be done to better understand the client and the site is worthwhile.  Basic client management skills and tools for soliciting needs from clients are paramount in developing a design program.

As much as I believed that validation was a part of other design disciplines I am even more convinced of it now.  Most of the current literature and discussion about design validation is related to other types of design.  It may be obvious in some disciplines.  For example, you cannot design a cell phone application without truly understanding what the users (clients) want to do with it.  I worked in the information systems field and requirements validation was a large part of successful development projects.  Landscape design does not really speak to the issue of validating what the client wants and needs.  There may be models, drawings, and plans but they do not necessarily speak to how the clients needs and requirements are being met.

I still think there is work to be done in applying approaches, methodologies, processes, techniques, tools, etc. from other design disciplines to this issue.  It is fundamentally an issue of translating what other disciplines have learned about validation and client requirements to landscape design.  Something that makes so much sense, designing what will meet the client’s needs, cannot be ignored.  This is much, much more that the client wants a patio to entertain guests.  It has to be the right patio to meet their entertaining needs.  Those needs have to be understood.  There are many other aesthetic issues.  There are practicality, cost, and other issues.  Balancing all of those things is what we do.  At the end of the process, we want to make sure that the design is the right design for the client.

Leverage Your Validation Work in the Client Presentation

A substantial part of the validation process is developing evidence to support our design decisions and corroborate how those decisions evolved into a landscape design that meets the client’s needs.  During the actual design presentation, you have the opportunity to present and discuss your solution.  You are focusing on the results of your design process, the design itself.  However, many of the artifacts that you create during data gathering, analysis, synthesis, ideation, and the entire pre-design process can help you make that presentation and support your reasons for making the decisions you did.  Showing the design elements, supported by the rational behind them in the form of your pre-design artifacts makes your presentation stronger.

A second factor is that regardless of now impressive your final drawings, plans, renderings, etc. are they only represent a small portion of the work you actually did.  Showing artifacts from your pre-design work establishes not only that there was more work behind the scenes, but that you carefully considered a myriad of issues in the process of developing the design.

Lastly, the evidence you develop in the form of various artifacts from your analysis are highly reusable.  When the client calls back for more work, you have the information stored electronically so it can be updated and reused.  Other clients will require similar analytical work and what you did for one client can be revised and reused for another.  This leverages your time and your digital assets.

Design is a process that creates a result; the design itself.  The design, when implemented creates an experience for the client.  The point of validation is to make sure that the design is the right design to create the experiences the client wants.  Convincing the client that your design will do that requires a great design and a great presentation.  You should highlight all of your work.  The result is important but the pre-design work is where you spent the bulk of your time.  You should use what you did in pre-design to help convince the client that the design is right for them.  After all, you did the work and believe in your design.  That work convinced you that your design is right.  Leverage it and use it to convince the client.

A Prototype Landscape Design?

My last post dealt with different ways of portraying the client experience that will be achieved by the design.  In essence, we are looking for ways to depict to the client how the space will look and more importantly how it will function.  In many design fields, they create prototypes.  In landscape design we occasionally make models but we really don’t prototype a design per se.  The concept of a prototype has different meanings in different fields.  A prototype aircraft is intend to be flown.  A prototype data system may be simple display screens or output reports.  For our purposes, a prototype can also mean different things.

In my last post, I mentioned the low-tech approaches of painting, chalking, or staking off spacing so clients could walk through potential spaces and envision what they might look like and feel like.  This is a form of a prototyping.  However, it would be considered “low fidelity” meaning that it does not convey a lot of information to the client.  The more realistic a prototype is the higher its fidelity or ability to communicate function and experience.

It is very hard in landscape design to prototype in a physical way.  You can mark out spaces.  I have also seen sheets or cardboard used to mark off walls or railings.  We can get creative and move the client’s existing tables, chairs, and other accessories around to represent new layouts.  We can use cardboard boxes to represent new features or amenities.  All of these sound lame.  However, I think we can learn a lot from these types of low fidelity prototypes.  You can actually walk the client through a concept with some semblance of space, layout, and traffic flow.  If you can add any details such as furnishings, it is just that much more helpful.

Another approach is to walk the client through another client’s site if there is enough similarity to warrant it.  This tends to work really well in subdivisions where many properties are similar in terms of house styles, terrain, etc.  I would classify this approach as having medium fidelity because it is real and it is complete.  The degree of fidelity or realism is dependent upon how closely the site matches with what you are proposing for your current client.  It is unlikely you will have a one hundred percent match in terms of decor, layout, amenities, etc. but you may have enough to work with to get some solid feedback from the client.

A high fidelity prototype would have to be a complete match of an existing site that you can tour with your client or a design simulated with virtual reality.  I have seen the complete match concept work in new subdivisions where there are five or six different house choices and everyone is starting from scratch.  What one client does can be replicated for other clients with a similar house and/or lot configuration.  The material, color, and other aesthetic choices do not have to be the same, but the conceptual layout can be a prototype for other clients in the same subdivision.  In terms of using virtual reality, I have mentioned in other posts that I don’t believe we are at a point where immersive virtual reality can be practically applied.

The whole purpose of a prototype, if you are a designer, is to learn from your client.  Their feedback from the experience of the prototype is invaluable.  Prototypes allow you to show your ideas to clients in a way that allows them to get a sense of where you are going and to give you feedback on your ideas.  The prototype should convey a sense of what the design might be or could be.  It doesn’t have to be real or accurate as long as it conveys a sense of the concept and functionality.

This is not a common practice so you have to prepare clients for it.  You have to explain that you are exploring ideas, layout, concepts, etc. and that you need their feedback.  It is almost like imaginative play.  You are pretending but it a serious way.  Some clients will be more receptive to the idea than others will.  Some clients may actually get into it.  Imagine a client calling the neighbors over to stand in the new “virtual space” to get a sense of how it would feel occupied by people.  Your objective is to learn from any feedback the client offers.  Anything you can do to increase the fidelity or make the prototype more representative will only benefit you.

Describing, Portraying, or Expressing the Design?

You have probably seen this quote before:

What I hear. I forget.
What I see, I remember.
What I do, I understand.
–Lao Tse

I have seen it numerous times but I ran across it the other day and it struck me that this characterizes a major point I am trying to make in the concept of landscape design validation.

Think about the client presentation.  You can tell the client how there design will look.  You can describe what they will have, where it will be, how it will look, how they can use it, and how it will be decorated.  You can eloquently paint a verbal picture.  Will they remember everything you tell them?  That is probably why we use plan views, drawings, elevations, storyboards, samples, and other visual tools.  Seeing a representation of what their space will look like helps the client remember it.

When it comes to the last part of the quote, how do you create the sense of the client actually using the space?  They cannot physically be in it, using it, until it is built.  This is where I believe the 3D visualization and the potential of virtual reality come into play.  The 3D simulations where you can “fly through” the space are currently the most accurate way of get close to achieving this.  There is the low-tech approach of marking out spaces with line, chalk, spray paint, or hoses so clients can walk through the physical space in scale proportion.  This does not provide any simulation of amenities, furnishings, softscape, or any other component of the finished product.

I think the quote offers some insight into the direction we need to move.  The closer we can get the client to actually physically engaging in a simulation of their space, the better our chances of validating that the design will meet their needs.

A Great Design Works for the Client

You have probably met with a client for the first time and had them tell you that they want their property, backyard, or whatever to look great.  Maybe they said they wanted their property to look as nice as the neighboring properties.  These are aesthetic requests.  I think they represent a common misconception about what we do.  Many potential clients assume that what designers do is decorate or enhance appearance.

One aspect of the validation concept is educating clients.  Working through the process and interacting with clients to understand their needs and requirements give us the opportunity to educate clients about functionality.  Design is about function.  What it looks like or feels like in important, but design should really address how it works for the client.  Good design is problem solving.  Sometimes the client doesn’t even know they have a problem.  Aesthetics may be part of the problem and part of the solution.  However, functionality and usability are the major problems most clients face.

Stressing function first assures that you are creating a usable space for your client.  Sizzle sells but functionality brings repeat business.  No matter how nice a space looks, if it doesn’t work for the client, they will never be happy with it.  Design for function first.  Create usable spaces that work for the client.  Then add the aesthetics.  You create a double win; a space that works for the client, and looks great too.

Designers Who Understand

If you watch HGTV shows such as Landscapers Challenge one of the things that the clients say most often when they pick the winning design is, “They really understood what we wanted.”  Everyone wants to be understood.  A whole industry of user experience design is growing up around what people truly want.  It affects us daily.  Go to an ATM machine or use a cell phone.  The interface on the device can make the experience a delight or a pain.  User interface design is being applied to the control panels in vehicles, remotes for audio/visual equipment, and many other products.  The experience design phenomenon is even extending to service industries.  How you are treated, the way you wait, how you are greeted, and other components of the service experience are being researched, analyzed, and changed in many service based enterprises to create memorable service experiences for customers.  In every case, the common denominator is understanding the customer.  What do they want to do?  What are they trying to accomplish?  What are their priorities?  What are their frustrations?  I think a huge part of the design validation issue is really all about understanding the client.  If we can be more empathetic and truly understand the client, we can determine and meet their needs.

As designers, we face this challenge from two perspectives.  First, our clients have a client experience in their dealings with us during a project.  Second, we want the outdoor space we design for them to provide a unique experience for them.

The first challenge, the client experience we create in client interactions, can be improved.  We need to make sure we communicate with the client appropriately, set and manage their expectations, clearly explain choices, deal with problems that arise by proposing solutions, and any number of other things to make the client’s design experience a memorable one.

The second challenge, creating the unique outdoor experience can only be accomplished by identifying with our clients and fully understanding their requirements.  Our clients want to be understood.  They need us to create what they truly want.

What drew me into this concept of landscape design validation was simply the conceptual ability to show clients what they were going to get and how it would work.  My prior experience in the systems field had provided me with approaches that worked in that environment.  There were numerous systems development projects that I was involved with that were not implemented successfully simply because of a lack of understanding the client.  Hence, my emphasis throughout this blog on the importance of gathering all of the clients requirements and trying to truly understand the client.  Many of the tools and techniques I have mentioned are aimed specifically at capturing and documenting client needs.  Without truly understanding what the client wants, you are aiming at the wrong target for your design.

Spending time with the client, observing their home and environment, watching their behavior, noting what they like and dislike, building rapport, actively listening to them, and so forth will go a long way toward increasing your understanding of the client.  The more you know the better your chances of finding those things that will leave the client saying, “They knew exactly what I wanted”.

Active / Proactive Design for Validation

My focus in this blog is the validation of landscape designs.  My intent is discover methods that will allow designers to make sure that designs will work for clients before any construction begins and in fact before the design is ever presented to the client.  As noted before, virtual reality, 3D graphic walkthroughs and time evaluation concepts are and continue to be a very interesting technique for achieving my goal.  However, given the current limitations of that technology and the other constraints, I have spent a lot of time looking at ways of attacking this problem through other means.

This blog was started six months ago on the premise of making sure that designs will work for our clients.  In reflecting over the sixty some posts so far, it struck me that what I am suggesting is to be more active and proactive in the design process.  I think I have been realistic in terms of making sure to point out where benefits can be realized.  I know many of the things I have suggested add to the time required to complete a project.  However, to balance this I have stressed reusability of work to speed the process and the benefits of highly satisfied clients.

The active / proactive design process starts with a focus on the client.  People first.  Design projects don’t exist without clients.  What do they really want?  What is it that they really need?  You also have to know what you have to work with.  Actively analyzing and understanding the client site provides the foundation for what can be created.  Validation fundamentally begins with these two steps.  Know the client and what they want.  Know what you have to work with.

Everything beyond this point is up to you.  What more can you do to create a design concept that will work for the client within their space.  What tools and techniques will you apply to the task to make sure you achieve that goal?  That is active / proactive design.  Again, this is the point where I am suggesting going the extra mile.  What additional information do you need?  What does the client need to see to move forward or make a decision?  The iterative design process I have suggested requires revisiting the client’s needs and site as needed throughout the design process.  Analysis of what you have may lead to new questions or a need to revisit the site for more evaluation.

Active design requires a higher degree of involvement, constant questioning, and analysis of all of the information gathered.  Design is all about function.  It also about the resulting experience the client obtains from their space.  Being active / proactive in the design process will produce the insights and information needed to create a design concept that is functional, completely meets the client’s needs, and provides an outdoor experience for the client.

Borrow Ruthlessly

There are a wealth of ideas we can use to help us gather, analyze, and validate our client’s landscape design requirements.  We need to look at other design disciplines and evaluate how the tools and techniques they use might apply in our field.  We may need to modify their ideas or apply them differently.  Designers in other fields face the same challenges we do.  They also face different ones.  We all have the same goal, create a design that functions as it suppose to.

When you look at the tools and techniques other types of designers use, you may think that they would not benefit you.  However, if you look closely at how and why the tool or technique is being used you may find there is more in common than you first imagined.  Tools and techniques are used in a context relative to a discipline.  That context varies by design discipline.

Just one example is the client context.  As landscape designers, we usually work for a specific client who we meet and have a relationship with.  Many other designers are designing for a generic “target” client.  A graphic or fashion designer works for a client but designs for a target client such as males between the ages of eighteen and thirty.  Within this context, they have to imagine client needs, responses, emotions, etc.  The tools and techniques the use to create a visual and mental image of a client may help us more clearly understand our known client.  We may apply the tool or technique differently, but it may still benefit us.

Sometimes a concept or approach may be used in another field that we should be thinking about also.  The one that has most influenced my thoughts about design is the concept of “user experience” or “client experience”.  These concepts have come from the systems design field for the most part.  They are used extensively in the design of user interfaces to web pages and computer programs.  They also apply to devices such as mp3 players or bank teller machines.  The concept is showing up in many other fields now.  The client experience with a service for example.  A restaurant may provide food and beverages as their primary offering but the ambiance and experience will add to the appeal to customers as well as the perceived value.  I think we should very carefully study how user or client experience applies to us as designers not only from the standpoint of what we deliver to the client in terms of the design result but also the process of interacting with us as designers.

Transferring ideas, approaches, concepts, techniques, etc. from one industry or field to another isn’t new.  There are countless success stories where this approach has been applied.  I just don’t think it has fully been applied in the field of landscape design.  Our approaches, service models, design process, business practices, and other aspects of our field can be improved.  Borrowing ruthlessly from our fellow design professionals is a good first step.

Suggesting Movement in Your Client Presentation

In design classes during the sessions on design development, they usually mention three techniques:  provide destinations, add mystery, and create journeys.  I frequently treat these three techniques as one.  For example, adding a path winding through the landscape creates the journey.  Adding a hidden bend adds mystery as to what is around that bend.  The seating area at the end of the path is the destination.  Blending the techniques creates one simple design element with many possible responses from those who use the space.  The problem is in presenting these potential responses to the client.  A two dimensional plan view doesn’t really do justice to the potential effect.

My thoughts to get around this issue are twofold.  First, 3D design software should allow you create the layout and then generate the 3D walkthrough for the client.  The second approach is to create a journey board.  A 2D plan view is mounted on the middle of a poster board.  At various points on the path, lines are drawn leading to depictions of what the client would see standing in that spot.  The depiction could be drawings, enhanced photos, or representative pictures from other sources.  The objective would be to lead the client through the landscape journey showing the elements of mystery and other features.  The final depiction would represent the destination.  Like any storyboard, addition softscape and hardscape features can be added.

The idea behind 3D walkthroughs is to show them onscreen in real time.  However if circumstances warrant, prints of the 3D view could also be mounted on the journey board.  A combination of the two approaches if you will.

Given that these are design techniques it isn’t likely that clients are going to have these on their list of requirements.  Although I have had clients ask for destinations like seating areas and/or pathways.  In spite of this, our design should still be validated to the extent possible.  There may be elements that you fit into the design that were requested.  These can be validated as meeting the client requirements.  Your design concept, presented as a 3D walkthrough or a journey board, can be validated through client feedback and comments.

Using either of these techniques allows you to simulate the quality of motion through the landscape.  The client can get a sense of what it will be like to walk the path and reach the destination.  This can be pointed out in a 2D plan view but it just isn’t as effective for soliciting a client’s reaction and approval.

Client Experience — the Result and the Process

Client experience is mostly about what happens after your design is implemented.  It is about how the client uses the space.  How it improves their life.  The memories it creates.

Another part of client experience is the entire process of working with you from first contact through conceptualizing the design to finished outdoor space.  We create the process experience just like the outdoor experience.  We have to understand what the client wants.  Do they need a lot of handholding?  Do they want many choices in materials and colors.  How often do they want to hear from us?  Have they had prior experience working with a designer?  Talking with the client and interacting with them over time will answer many of these questions.  We may be a professional service but we are also in the customer service business.  Our designs are intangible until built but our dealings with the client are enduring experiences for the client.

There are countless books and articles about customer service and client interaction.  Any number of these are worth reading if you want to improve your client management skills.  If we want to be well-rounded, professional designers, we have to excel in all aspects of our profession.  The best designer without people skills or business skills will not succeed.

Creating a client experience requires all of our client management skills, analytical skills, and creative design solutions.  Using all of these will result in a design that can be validated, and implemented to create an outdoor client experience that meets or exceeds our client’s expectations.

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.

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.

Tools for Client Focused Designs

I am not sure when I first heard it, but I have believed in the adage “if you really know a topic, you can teach it to someone else” for a long time.  I apply that adage to understanding clients.  If I can really describe them and what they do and what they want to do, then I understand them.

In many other disciplines, there is a major focus on the user interface or user experience with the product or system.  In previous posts, I have drawn the analogy of creating an outdoor experience for clients.  I believe the user experience is a part of virtually any product or service we touch or use.  I put a lot of emphasis on the quality of the experience that a design can provide and how closely that experience matches the client’s expectations.

Designing user experiences begins with understanding the users.  Some of the tools that are used include personas and user stories.  These tools describe the users of the product or system.  They are not descriptions of usage.  Usage is what is being done.  Users are who is doing it.  I think this is an important distinction.  Getting money out of an ATM machine is a common usage activity or task.  The users who perform that activity vary greatly as do their motivations for doing it.  Designing how the process of getting cash from the ATM is accomplished requires thinking a great deal about that variety of users and motivations.  I think the same can be said for a landscape design.  Outdoor entertaining is a usage activity.  The clients may accomplish that activity in many different ways and may have a variety of motivations for doing so.  The entertaining space for a couple entering retirement will most likely be very different from the space for a young couple with small children.  Again, I think that client understanding is crucial.

The tools I mentioned previously, personas and user stories, tend to be used when there is a generic user who can be identified via demographics or surveys.  These user descriptions identify who would be using an ATM machine or an MP3 player or who might be searching for a flat screen TV on a web site.  This obviously means multiple personas or user stories.  We generally do not have that type of requirement in a landscape design project.

The first thing I do after completing the client analysis is to prepare a graphic client profile that will help me keep the client in mind while I am going through the design process.  I could use a simple list but I prefer a more graphic format for two reasons.  First, the information stands out and is very visible.  Second, and more important, a graphical format allows me to depict relationships between elements of the description.  A text listing is hierarchical.  The graphic format allows me the flexibility of depicting the importance and interrelationship of each element in the summary of the client.

Compiling a client profile isn’t always easy for a number of reasons.  First, you have to make sure you have all of the information and data you can obtain from the client.  Second, there are frequent situations where a couple have different tastes, preferences, ideas, and expectations.  When this happens, you can often end up with two clients.  A third situation is the commercial job where the client may be several individuals or a committee.  Again, there is often differing opinions as to what should be done.  The situation that comes most closely to a generic user is the common space.  This may occur in an apartment, condominium complex, assisted living center, or similar shared space environment.  In this situation, I may make sense to create personas to identify typical users of the space.

In disciplines where they user personas and user stories a lot, a frequently used techniques is for someone on the design team to play the role of the user in design review meetings.  I find this a useful technique to apply informally.  As I am putting together design ideas, I look back on my client profile and evaluate what I am proposing from their perspective.  It is not as independent as having someone role play the part but it does offer a chance to step back and make sure that the ideas align with the client.

I find that having a client profile in front of you, which is highly visible and focuses on key elements, is an extremely useful tool for developing more client-focused designs.

A Layer Design Validation Model?

Part of the challenge to put a framework around the concept of landscape design validation is that it only fits existing design process models to some degree.  Most of the traditional models are linear.  The notion of validation requires a more iterative process because corrections or adjustments will need to be made to the design as it is developed.

A second issue that I am wrestling with is the question of what the true deliverable to the client is comprised of.  I like the notion that my design is actually creating an outdoor experience for the client.  They will use and play in that space.  They will actually be a part of the space and “interface” with the design elements and components.  Because of this perspective, I have also looked to user interface design models for ideas.  I think the concept of user experience can be extended beyond technology.  It can encompass virtually anything we use or interact with.

Like a landscape design, a user interface (i.e., a web site) has component layers.  These layers may be hidden or openly visible.  It is not as simple as land/property versus hardscape and softscape elements.  Existing elements such as the property and buildings establish constraints.  The designer has to work within them.  Some changes or enhancements to the site are possible through grading, terracing, etc.  Beyond those superficial changes, there is still a physical constraint.  Thorough site analysis may uncover other factors that limit what can be done.

A second layer is the client use layer.  The designer will notice certain usage areas through the site analysis.  However, to understand what is required to meet the client’s needs, it is necessary to uncover all of the client’s requirements and expectations.  The importance of understanding all of the client’s needs is an on-going theme in this blog.  The designer has to add functions, spaces, and elements to the site that will serve the client and provide an aesthetic appeal.  The user experience design models address the importance of this step through a variety of techniques that help the designer understand the client and their motivations.

The framework layers are much like tracing paper overlaid on a base plan or the different drawing layers in a DynaSCAPE design.  The layers have to be placed over each other in a sequence in order to evolve the drawing.  They can be removed or moved up and down in the sequence to change the view.  They can also be pulled out individually and modified or updated as necessary.

In future posts I hope of develop a model framework for the design validation process.  A key component of that model will be the client needs analysis.  My goal is not another theoretical model put a practical methodology and toolkit that can be applied in the real landscape design world.

What can we learn from other types of designers?

Many different disciplines such as architecture, engineering, construction, information services, and others follow a very rigorous process of designing and developing their products.  With some variation, a project typically begins with an analysis of what needs to be done (identify requirements).  Those requirements are translated into specifications that may be plans or a requirements document.  The plans or specifications are used to build the product.  Each discipline has subtle differences.  Physical or computer models may be constructed.  Analysis may encompass capacity studies or stress tests.  Environmental impact may be assessed.  The things that require unique assessment or study will vary by discipline and in some cases by project or product.

In spite of this rigorous process, failures do occur.  Buildings do collapse, fully or partially.  Supposedly well designed vehicles, that are marketed and targeted for consumers, do not sell.  Large-scale information system upgrades such as EZ-Pass or the FAA’s air traffic control system are not deployed seamlessly and require massive changes to be implemented successfully.

There are numerous studies across industries and disciplines that show that for projects to be successful the needs must be fully captured.  The needs must be documented into clear, usable requirements and those requirements must be validated before any construction or development begins.  The risk of not validating requirements is huge.  Once construction or development begins, costs are sunk.  Any changes may necessitate massive amounts of rework or even potentially scraping what has been done and starting over.  Incomplete or inaccurate requirements cost more to address the further into the construction or development process they are identified.

Most landscaping projects do not exhibit the massive amounts of financial risk from changes or omissions that other types of projects do.  However, they do meet the same criteria for success.  Needs must be fully understood.  The needs must be converted into clear, understandable requirements; the design program.  That design program becomes the basis for the remainder of the design process resulting in preliminary and final designs.

Most of my personal experience in working with validation comes from the information systems field.  When I began looking at this concept as it could be applied to landscape design I started looking at other disciplines and at design issues in general.  There was a lot more information available about analysis techniques in the architecture and interior design fields.  I came away from reviewing that material feeling that architects and interior designers are much more rigorous in their approach to pre-design analysis.  From the standpoint of architecture this probably makes a lot of sense because of the scale of projects they encounter are much larger physically and financially.  Interior designers seem to be more rigorous due to the fact that they are working in spaces that are usually small and confined.  There are large projects like hotels where the scale factor applies.  In general, the practices of both disciplines seemed much more methodical and offered more analysis tools for a designer to use.

Another area where I found a wealth of potential ideas was in web design.  Although web projects are essentially information systems projects, they tend to have one very unique aspect; user experience.  Getting people to use a web site and return to it repeatedly requires that the site provide valuable content and that it be easy to use.  The elements of site navigation, content, usability, design, and appearance are all part of the user experience.  These same types of elements could apply to a landscape design.  As designers, we want to create outdoor user experiences.  It is easy to draw analogies between the web site components and an outdoor space.

As landscape designers we should be looking at the practices, methods, and tools that other types of designers are using.  Each type of designer faces unique challenges but we have a common objective to meet the client’s needs as completely as possible within the constraints of the project.