How Many Designs Do You Create for a Client?

An interesting post in the Designers on Design blog today titled “Plan B“.  The thrust of the post by Danilo P. Maffei, APLD, is that only one design should be created for the client; there is no need for a backup plan if you know the first or primary plan is your best work and it is the right design for the client.  His argument is that not only does it take more time; it also makes us less committed to the success of our primary plan.  There are several interesting follow-up comments to the post.  The post and comments are well worth reading.

I believe the best approach is to have one single final design unless the client specifically asks for multiple designs and is willing to pay for them.  In this case, each plan should meet the same criteria in terms of meeting the client’s requirements.  Serving up two completely different designs that meet the same requirements means a substantial amount of additional work in terms of validating that each design provides the same functionality and meets the client’s needs.  The only way this could vary is if the client asked for two or more plans that provided different functions or were based on different budgetary or time constraints.

If there is a need for experimentation or consideration of alternatives, that should come during pre-design.  Frequently during the ideation phase I work through iteratively.  Based on some usage scenarios I try to understand the adjacency requirements and prepare a few bubble / functional diagrams.  Then, I will shift gears and start looking at potential form compositions.  After generating some ideas I will go back to my bubble / functional diagrams and see how they work within the form composition ideas I have generated.  I may start looking more closely at traffic flow or other issues.  Two or three of these ideas may be worth pursuing in more detail and may be considered as potential starting points for preliminary designs.  Preparing more than one preliminary design is acceptable and may be worthwhile from the standpoint of validating the client’s requirements.

The point of design validation is to make sure that all of the alternatives, choices, and issues are resolved before the final design is completed.  Completely validating a design implies that the one and only final design meets the client’s needs.  It should match the client’s style and tastes.  It should include the hardscape and softscape elements that the client prefers or will be happy with.  If the design has been fully validated there should be no need for a Plan B.

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.

Design Boundaries and the Validation Process

Design is partially an opportunity to make sense of something.  It is a chance to understand an environment, a space, a client, and a myriad of other things related to the project.  Design is also an opportunity to change something.  In the case of landscape design, that something is usually the space.  You can seldom change the environment.  You can disguise or enhance it, make it more attractive, make it more pleasant, and work within its constraints in other ways.  You cannot change the context of the site.  A space is located within the confines of its neighborhood, community, etc.  Although you might be able to change the client via education, logic, and reason, that usually isn’t our primary focus.

Analysis is the part of design where you make sense of things.  You are looking at the client, context, environment, and everything else that might possibly affect your design.  A fundamental part of analysis is determining boundaries.  Those boundaries are where you cannot change things.  They limit you.  They constrain you.  They challenge you.  They test your design creativity.  Analysis is learning and knowing everything you can about a site and client and it is also knowing where your boundaries lie.  What can you not do and what can you not change.  There are multiple boundaries.  There are the physical boundaries of the property.  There are the contextual boundaries of the location.  The client’s taste, preferences, and budget impose boundaries.  So where is the room for creativity?

The design process and design product are intertwined but two very distinct things.  Knowing what is within your sphere of influence and what is outside it is an integral part of the process.  Analysis helps you define the working space.  That is the making sense part of design.

Synthesis is where you start creating your conceptual design based on your analysis and your understanding of the boundaries.  What can you create that meets the functional requirements and works within the constraints and boundaries that you face?  Can you push a boundary or take it to its absolute limits?  Can you make a boundary inconsequential by creatively working around it?  Boundaries and constraints create challenges but they give us the opportunity to develop creative solutions.

Part of the design validation process is making sure that you have worked within your constraints and stayed within the boundaries that were imposed on you.  Your design program should have noted the imposed limitations, constraints, boundaries, etc.  However, you should begin validating against them during synthesis when you are developing conceptual designs.  Design validation is applied to the design to make sure that the design will work for the client and that the design does not exceed the project boundaries.

Design Process Model – Tools for Each Phase

The last several posts have dealt with high-level view of my design process model.  The series covered each major phase and how they build on and overlap one another.  Subsequent posts discussed how the phases overlap with the two major project inputs, the client and the site.  This post deals with the details of how specific tasks and activities fit into the phases and how they support subsequent tasks in later phases of the design process.

A few points need to be clarified first.  In the diagrams below, I have laid out the representation of tasks and activities in a timeline format.  That does not necessarily imply there is a rigorous schedule that must be adhered to.  In an iterative design model, you cycle back and forth between and within phases.  It may make sense in one project to start a task early, and in the next project that same task may get postponed.  So interpret the timeline depiction loosely.  The starting points for tasks are determined based on what would typically make sense and based on the completion of any prerequisite tasks.  The length of the blocks is again based on what would typically make sense.  Some tasks may take more or less time depending on the project.  Additionally, the timeline blocks are grouped by phase for ease of identifying tasks in a particular phase.  They are not necessarily aligned horizontally with precursor tasks in earlier phases.

Second, some tasks overlap more than one phase.  The diagrams below have a legend that reflects the phase of tasks by color.  Tasks that span two phases are shown in the color of the phase they start in to the left and the color of the phase they end in to the right.

Lastly, this is not a comprehensive list of every activity or tools available.  It encompasses more detail than the high-level model but it is not an exhaustive checklist.  Very specific tasks such as soil analysis or surveys are rolled up into high-level task descriptions such as site analysis.

The first diagram depicts the Client Interaction tasks.  These tasks and activities are color-coded blue.

Client Interaction Tasks

Client Interaction tasks start at the inception of the project.  The task, Client interview / Follow-up / Meetings, spans the entire project to stress the need for regular interaction with the client.  Several tasks span into the Data Gathering phase so they are color-coded blue at the start end and violet at the end.  The remaining Data Gathering tasks are next.

Data Gathering Tasks

These tasks are color-coded violet.  They tasks also begin with the inception of the project.  Some may occur during the initial client meeting.  Others may follow days later.  The actual scheduling will vary by project.  The next set of activities and tasks is Analysis / Synthesis:

Analysis / Synthesis Tasks

These are the follow-on activities and tasks that you will complete to analyze the data you have gathered.  This is where dependencies begin to arise.  You have to have the data before you can analyze it.  The tasks in Analysis / Synthesis build on one another.  You have to do some before you can work on others.  What you find may lead you back to re-analyze what to found earlier.  This is the iterative process.  When Analysis / Synthesis is far enough along you can begin Creative Development:

Creative Development Tasks

A substantial number of Creative Development tasks lead to the creation of Client Deliverables.  You will also note that they start while Analysis / Synthesis is still underway.  You may begin exploring design concepts while you are doing analysis.

The key document you produce during Creative Development is the design program, which cannot be completed until Analysis / Synthesis is complete.  You have to analyze all of the data and synthesize it into a meaningful set of client and design requirements in order to preduce the design program.  Much of what is done in the Creative Development phase is reused, as you will see when we add the Client Deliverable tasks:

Client Deliverable Tasks

The Client Deliverables are what you present to the client when you are finished with the project.  You will typically walk through these with the client during the final design presentation.  Not every project will require every item listed.  Some projects may require other deliverables.  Whatever the items are, these are the result of everything you have done to this point.  They are the basis for the client proceeding with the project and beginning construction.

These diagrams fill in the gaps with specific tools and techniques to support the phases in the high-level model.  Treating these tools flexibly and remembering that it is an iterative process is key.  You will most likely not use every tool in every project.  You have to choose which to use based on the scope of the project and what you have to work with.  The objective is to build confidence that you have discovered all of the client’s requirements and that your process and results support the logical thinking that evolved into your design concept.  The target is to create Client Deliverables that meet the client’s needs and satisfy the requirements of the site.  Following a logical process and working iteratively, you will be able to meet your objective and have a satisfied client.

Design Process Model – The Site

Analyzing the client site is a much more technical, analytical task than the client analysis.  You are dealing with the physical and tangible.  However, there are often one or more vague elements.  There aren’t any personalities or egos or agendas to deal with.  Site analysis is also much more scalable.  By that, I mean you can adjust what you do to the scope of the potential job.  You don’t need a geological survey for a small job or updating some planting beds.

The real issue comes down to those big jobs that have a huge impact on the property and the client is potentially investing a lot of money.  You also have to watch out for the medium size jobs that have unusual site circumstances.  Site analysis comes down to a drawing a line that will make you comfortable that you know enough about the site for the scope of work and that you can avoid overlooking anything major.  It is also extremely helpful to understand the site well enough to develop some creative ideas.

I really do not like checklists.  They tend to make us think that we have covered everything just because we have gone through them.  In this case, though, I have compiled a comprehensive list of things you might or might not do as part of a site analysis.  The list is broken up into three sections:  Natural features, Man-made features, and Contextual features.

• Natural features are those things related to the location and ground.  Even if the site was initially graded and landscape previously, the existing terrain, soil, plant materials, climate, etc. are all part of this section.
• Man-made features are the structures on the site and any infrastructure supporting the site.  This also includes the architectural style and related detail of the structure including ingress and egress.
• Contextual features are all of the surroundings of the site and now the site fits into those surroundings.

The list is as follows:

Natural features

• Terrain (rise / fall of land)
• Topography (record of terrain)
• Slopes (steepness measurements)
• Erosion (present / potential)
• Directions of surface drainage
• Areas of puddling / drought
• Geology
• Soil conditions / qualities
• Existing softscape
• Microclimates
• Climate (regional macro)
• USDA Plant Hardiness Zone
• Sun / shade angles
• Prevailing winds
• Annual rainfall / snowfall
• Depth of frost line
• Off-site view

Man-made features

• Existing buildings
• Utilities
• Paved areas
• Existing hardscape
• Existing landscape features
• Building architecture
• Building details (doors / windows)
• Lines of force
• Image / style
• Access
• Enclosure (screening)
• Current storage spaces
• Adjacent property development

Contextual features

• Property lines
• Setback
• Zoning regulations
• Deed restrictions
• Covenants
• Right-of-ways
• Easements
• Zero lot lines
• Off-site noise / odors / etc.
• Historical significance
• Regional / local style

Since the type of data we are gathering for the site analysis is less subjective than client data, it lends itself to being recordable in a graphic or visual format.  Most of the data can be graphed, drawn, sketched, plotted, or recorded in some type of visual format.  If we can record the data in a central place such as over a base plan, we have the ability to summarize and consolidate the various types of data we collect.  I have two ways of managing the data and making it easy to manipulate.

The first is to use DynaSCAPE and take advantage of its layers feature.  I import the base plan as a graphic and redraw the elements I need.  This becomes my base plan layer.  After that, I work from my notes and transfer different types of data over my base plan using a different DynaSCAPE layer for each.  For example, anything dealing with terrain, slope, or topography goes on one layer.  I may use another layer for microclimate data.  The number of layers and the way I group or merge data will depend on how much data I have and how finite I want to break it down.  When I am done, I can use DynaSCAPE to select various layers in combination to see how they impact or interact with each other.  For example, I might look at how the lines of force overlay the topography.  The base plan layer is always selected to give a reference point to the view.  However, mixing up and combining different layers of data allow you to see how site elements influences one another.

The second method is to use Microsoft PowerPoint.  I insert a graphic of the base plan onto an initial slide.  I then duplicate that slide for the number of times that I want to create separate overlays.  Then I follow the same process as above.  I use PowerPoint drawing tools to layout various site elements one slide at a time.  Mixing and matching gets a little more tricky with PowerPoint.  If I want to combine two elements, I will duplicate the slide for one of them and then add the overlay graphics for the second set of elements to the new slide.  Working this way with PowerPoint is doable and in some cases can be easier but you have to be a little more careful and manage your individual slides so you know what you have.

Both of these methods work.  They both can be tedious.  However, the real power of analysis is the ability to combine different kinds of data and information.  The results can be well worth the effort.  You may not always know which layers of data to combine.  It sometimes comes down to looking at the individual components and giving some serious thought to how that might affect one another.  You might have an area with drainage issues that you need to deal with but easements could constrain how you address those issues.  There may be opportunities to use the existing structures and lines of force to create a compelling space layout but the pattern of sun and shade in the space may preclude that solution.  You have to think about the information and go through the analysis.  That is really the point.

One other advantage to the DynaSCAPE method is that when I get to preliminary design I can pull some of my analysis layers to the preliminary design to see the impact.  For example, I may look at how prevailing wind or sun / shade angles to make sure they are fitting into my design correctly.

My last point is to not forget reusability.  Any graphic or visual you create for one client can be copied over the base plan for another client.  Don’t recreate the wheel.  Save your time for the in-depth analysis of your data.

Design Process Model – The Data Gathering Key Validation Point

The high-level model presented in my last post shows three major validation points.  These come at the end of Data Gathering, Analysis / Synthesis, and Creative Development.  In this post, we are going to deal with the first major validation point, Data Gathering.

Key Validation Points

At the end of Data Gathering, you should have all client needs and a complete site analysis.  The overlap with Analysis / Synthesis is included to provide you the opportunity to go back and ask more questions or gather more data as needed.  In the process of gathering data, you may undertake some analysis that leads you to reconsider the need for more client input or site data.  You should use this key validation point as a test to determine to your complete satisfaction that you have done all necessary data gathering.

Client needs are the most difficult to gather and validate.  As I have mentioned in previous posts, you may have clients who are not aware of all of their own needs.  You may also have clients who are less than forthcoming about their motivations for the project and their expectations.  Given these types of obstacles, it is necessary to approach client needs gathering in a variety of ways.  Asking questions isn’t really enough.  You need to observe the client and their environment to confirm what the client is saying is consistent with their lifestyle.  Asking the same question in different ways at different times may help you confirm that the client is consistent in what they are asking for.  Asking the client to pick samples of things they like such as hardscape samples or softscape materials can also help confirm that the client is clear and consistent.  At the core of any client needs gathering process is the ability to get the client to tell you what they really need, rather than their preconceived solution, what they think you want them to say, or what they think you might be able to deliver.

The site analysis portion of data gathering is more straightforward.  However, it should go beyond simple measurements and note taking.  Digital pictures or drawings are usually helpful.  Viewing the client’s site from different perspectives or at different times of the day can be useful.  Evaluating the neighboring properties and the neighborhood or community can help provide context.  There are also the very specific tasks such as soil samples, surveys, etc.  One of the key points in site analysis is observation.  The context of how the property is currently maintained and landscaped is important.  What the client may have done in the past can provide clues to their tastes and preferences.  Observing the details of how the site is viewed from the outside in and the inside out may provide you with ideas that you can capitalize on later.

In a subsequent post, I am going to go into detail about the specific methods, tools, and techniques you can use to gather the client and site data.  But for now the validation questions you should be asking yourself are:

• “Have I captured all of the client’s needs?”
• “Do I know what the client does not want?”
• “Have I cross-checked and confirmed the client’s answers to my questions?”
• “Do I understand their tastes and preferences?”
• “Can I describe the client’s lifestyle?”
• “Do I have all the site data I need?”
• “Do I have an understanding of how the site relates to the surrounding properties?”

If you feel confident that you can answer these types of questions, you should be done with Data Gathering.

This is a key validation point for a reason.  Missing or incomplete requirements are a huge risk.  This includes requirements that were never identified, requirements that are not fully understood, requirements that are changing, requirements that are not prioritized, and requirements that are  wish list items.  You have to have ALL requirements, and fully understand them.  You also have to know where they stand in the client’s priorities.

The site itself is not so much a set of requirements as a set of constraints and opportunities.  Incomplete site analysis may mean designs that are not feasible due to constraints or missed opportunities to capitalize on existing assets.

The natural tendency is “the smaller the job, the less data gathering you do”.  Regardless of the size of the job, there are two big holes to fill in.  The client, who are they, what do they need, and the site, what do you have to work with.  Realistically you do have to scale back what you do when the scope of work is extremely small.  However, given that, you should be open to learning as much as possible about the client.  That information may come in handy in the current project and in the future.  Also, evaluating the entire site may lead to future projects.

Upcoming posts will go into detail about the methods, tools, and techniques used within each phase.  I will also be discussing the remaining two key validation points that come at the end of Analysis / Synthesis and the end of Creative Development.

Gathering Data: Challenges, Irony, and Value

Part of the problem of using a more analytical approach to design is what to do with all the information and data you obtain.  How do you capture it?  How do you organize it?  How do you make sense of it?  It is ironic that as we move through the design process from the start we want to capture more information as we go further into the process.  This is the collection, expansion, and elaboration of data and information about the client, site, neighborhood, city, etc.  However as we move toward the end of the design process we want to distill that information into the key elements necessary to make design decisions.  We need to cull the data and information into the most important elements that will help us develop our design concepts and make decisions about those concepts.  This is a reduction process.

Just stop and think about all the data you can gather.  You will have notes from client meetings.  You may make sketches.  You may mark and note a copy of the base plan.  You may take digital photos.  There may be information about local climate patterns available, historical information about the neighborhood, native plants to research, local or neighborhood zoning restrictions to gather, and so forth.  Taking the client on a field trip may generate a completely new set of notes not to mention the possibility of material samples, potential softscape materials, etc.

The first question is how much information do you need to collect.  Spending time gathering information costs you time.  Time you could spend doing design, working with other clients, marketing, etc.  In every job, you have to make a decision about how much information you need.  At what point do you have enough information to make the best possible design decisions?

The second question is how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable.  As noted above, there are going to be many sources of data and information.  They are likely to be recorded, captured, or available to you in a variety of formats.  What do you do with that collection of materials that will make it accessible, usable, and useful?

This leads to the third question, how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material.  What means do you use to capitalize on everything you have gathered?  What are the tools and techniques that you can use to see everything and see the implications of all the material?

Lastly, how do you reduce the data to its essential components?  What are the key elements?  How do you find those pieces in all of the material that combine to make the best design concepts?  What are the best approaches to focusing on the pieces you need to make design decisions that are right for the client and their space, and make it compelling and visually exciting?

I intend to explore these issues in more detail in upcoming posts.  Each of these issues is complex and has many possible ways of being handled.

Post Project Reviews – Validation and Verification

The obvious benefits of doing work for a client are the income and building your client list.  You can add to your portfolio too.  There is the added benefit of potential ongoing work such as maintenance and for update or makeover work in the future.  A more subtle benefit is the opportunity to learn and develop skills, techniques, and approaches that you can use in the future with other clients.  An even more subtle benefit is improving your design and business processes.

To capitalize on these benefits you have to conduct a post project review after every project.  I have discussed these types of reviews in previous posts, but from the perspective of the client’s feedback.  Now it is time for your internal review.  If you are working as a individual, this process is one of reflection and self-critique.  If you have other staff working on the project, they should participate in the process.

I tend to approach these project reviews systematically by reviewing the project in steps.  The review should be done very soon after the project is complete.  However, the client review should be completed before your internal review so you have that feedback available.

The first step is to compile all of the project artifacts.  This includes notes, drawings, analysis, plans, etc.  These are reviewed for possible inclusion in your portfolio.  Since everything is gathered, it is a good time to write up a project overview to use for future marketing or reference needs.  Were any new skills, techniques, or approaches used in the project?  Is there anything new that can be added to your list of services or expertise?  All pertinent business and marketed materials should be updated as necessary.  Add the client to your client list.  Will the client make a good reference?  If so, add them to the reference list or flag their contact record to indicate this.

The next step is to consider the project delivery.  There are many questions to ask.  Did you follow a project plan?  Did the plan work?  Were there any issues or problems that come up?  Was the scope of the project what was originally envisioned?  Were the materials estimates correct?  Was the client profile on target?  Was the site analysis correct?  Was the work effort estimate correct?  If any of these apply, how were the problems handled?  In hindsight, was that the best way to handle the problem?  What could you have done differently?  If any problems, issues, estimation errors, or anything else did come up, why did it come up?  What was wrong with the original plan, scope, estimate, etc.?  The objective is to find out what caused any problems or issues and why.  Then you need to decide what you are going to do to prevent the problem from happening again or if it does happen how you might handle it differently.

Next go through all of the things that were right.  If the scope, estimates, schedule, and so forth were right ask yourself why.  Did you follow your regular process?  Did you make any adjustments or allow for any contingencies that influenced the positive outcome.  The objective is to reinforce the things that were done right.  You may want to also consider the possibility of improvements in the process.  Even if everything went according to plan, is there anything that could have been done better.

These steps of analyzing anything that did not go right and all the things that did is a “lessons learned” process.  It helps you avoid repeating mistakes in the future and reinforces the things you are doing right.

The last part of the project review is to review the client feedback.  You should be able to take any positive and negative feedback from the client and compare it to your own internal review.  Things the client may have been unhappy about may be things that you have already determined were an issue.  Again, look at how you are going to change your process to avoid this problem or issue.  Positive client feedback should be acknowledged also.  What was it that created the positive feedback?  Were there one or more specific things?  How can you capitalize on those things to satisfy future clients?

The scope of the post project review will obviously vary from an individual designer to a large design/build firm.  The number of people involved in the review being an obvious difference.  In the case of large firms, lessons learned should be shared across all crews or teams so that the entire company staff benefits.  Any new capabilities or skills should also be shared so that everyone is aware of them.

The purpose of the post project review is to update your marketing and sales materials and improve your project delivery processes.  It is not an exercise in finding or placing blame.  Regardless of how poorly a project might have gone, the review process should be treated as a positive exercise because you will benefit from it.

I have discussed the differences between validation and verification in previous posts.  A portion of the post project review should deal with the validation issue.  Did you meet the clients needs and requirements?  The majority of the focus should be on verification.  Did you do the right thing, the right way?  If not, what are you going to do going forward to correct that issue?

Leveraging What We Do Best – Is That the Right Thing to Do?

One of the early lessons I learned in the consulting business was to leverage the products I created for one client and reuse them with other clients.  Let me give a quick example.  I created an Investor Relations data management system for a major corporation.  I captured their online data about who owned their stock and produced reports about who those major owners were and how the ownership was distributed  The system also monitored trading activity in their stock.  Other functions monitored news, graphed trends, produced alerts, and so forth.  Creating this system was not a huge undertaking.  However, when I was done, the model could be applied to other corporations.  All that really needed to be done was to change the access to capture one corporation’s data instead of another’s.  Hence the leverage.  My work could be reused from one corporation to the next with minimal change.  Assuming I charged the same rate for the second and subsequent customer, my profit increased since there is no real development time.

So what does this have to do with landscape design?  I think several things.  First, as designers do we try to replicate softscape and hardscape materials or design concepts from one client to the next for the same reasons; to leverage something we have already done?  Do we produce similar designs because we can leverage what we already know and understand?  Do we seek out clients with similar problems because we know how to deal with them quickly and efficiently?

It probably makes sense for a designer or design firm of a certain size to pre-screen clients to make sure they are the right fit for what they do.  A firm the does design, build, and maintenance probably doesn’t want to deal with someone who want a few plants replaced.  A designer will probably fend off a call from a homeowner looking for a spring cleanup.  All businesses have target customers or clients.  As landscape designers we should have a target market also.  When a potential client doesn’t fit that profile they should be referred on to another firm or politely told that their need isn’t what we do.

The point is, that given a target market, leveraging what we have done in the past is good.  You can work from your strengths.  However, you cannot take the one size fits all approach.  Our strengths can be our reputation.  We can be the best designer of outdoor kitchens in the city.  We can leverage our expertise but treat each client as a unique situation.  We can help clients create the perfect outdoor kitchen for their needs.  We cannot, however, just take on clients, and prescribe an outdoor kitchen just because that is what we do best.

Back to my consulting story.  I resold the Investor Relations management system many times.  As new clients acquired it, I got suggestions for new features and improvements.  As those were incorporated, I went back to old clients to offer them the enhancements.  I was learning as I was going and offering my customers the benefit of that new knowledge.  However, as other clients approached me with different needs such as systems for tracking water-quality tests or calculating bulk materials handling requirements I did not turn those clients away.  I learned new business requirements and created solutions for those problems.

As a landscape designer you can do the same thing.  Your strength may be water features or swimming pools or old English gardens but when there is a need for a rock garden or something that is outside of your normal approach you can use that as a learning tool and build your portfolio of skills and experience.  When the opportunity arises for you to create a design that is within your area of expertise, you can still learn and improve upon what you do.  When the project is over you take that enhanced knowledge and experience on to new clients.  Each client has to be treated as unique.  That uniqueness will present opportunities for us to either leverage our strengths and build new skills and expertise.  That is how we grow as professional and expand our reputation.

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.

Validation – the Impact on Proposals and Pricing

I classify landscape design as a professional service.  Like any professional service provider, designers have a dilemma in deciding how much work to put into a client job in order to actually get a job or contract.  The typical scenario is that the designer meets the client and evaluates the site.  They use that information to create a proposal to do the actual design work for the client.  The problem that arises is twofold.  How much do you need to know to accurately price your proposal for the work you are going to do?  Second, how much time do you spend gathering that information and analyzing it to come up with a proposal price?

I have been advocating spending more time gathering information about the client and the site and spending more time analyzing that data.  In previous posts, I have tried to justify this additional time based on the value it adds and the benefit of using the analysis to validate design decisions.  From the standpoint of results, higher client satisfaction, more repeat business, and more referrals, I believe the additional time and effort are well worth it.  In addition, I have tried to make the point the a lot of the tools and techniques are highly reusable.  Once you have done it once, you have a template or a model you can reuse on future jobs.  Once past the learning curve and creating the first set of templates for analysis, the time required to create them is reduced.

There are at least a couple of situations that may arise.  First, there may be those clients that you just can’t get a handle on what they want or what they are looking for.  Second, the potential job is very large and/or has a lot of complex components.  In the first case, if you do not have a handle on what needs to be done it is obviously difficult to price a potential design.  Before you can even start, you will need to draw out the client and find out what their expectation are and why they want the design.  You will need to factor in additional time for some “discovery” work.

The second scenario of a very large, complex job has a couple of potential solutions.  One solution is to simply make the best estimate you can of the time that will be required to get more information from the client and to analyze all of the components of the site that will need design work.  Another solution is to explain to the client that a certain amount of pre-design work is required and that you would like to price that separately.  If the client is agreeable, a proposal for the evaluation work can be created quickly.  The scope of this proposal would include the work for additional client needs research and detailed site analysis.  The deliverables for the client could be the results of this work in a report format as well as the proposal for the actual design work.  I believe this approach benefits the client in that they are spending a lower amount to obtain a more accurate, complete proposal.  The designer benefits from having lower risk of under pricing the design.

This type of pre-proposal evaluation contract is frequently used in consulting work.  I have also seen it used in systems development projects where a limited amount of funding is provided to develop requirements and the costs for a large systems development project.  The intent in both cases is to make sure that all of the requirements are identified.  Capturing all of the requirements is essential if the result is going to meet the client’s expectations.

Focusing on requirements validation requires some careful re-thinking of how to price and propose design services.  As the service provider you have to make sure you understand what needs to be done to meet the client’s expectations and what you need to do to achieve that goal.

Expanding Project Scope the Right Way

Every design job has a scope.  Scope defines what work is to be done for the client.  Sometimes this is defined in the proposal under a header, “Scope of Work” or “Scope of Services”.  In many fields, scope management is a huge issue.  You may have heard the term “scope creep” when clients keep asking for little changes or add-ons to a project.  Designers need to carefully define the scope of work they propose and also be alert for scope creep in their projects.

The scope of work a designer proposes should very carefully specify what the project deliverables are.  The deliverables are the actual plans, drawings, sketches, lists, etc. that the designer is proposing to provide the client in addition to the actual work that underlies them.  By specifying exactly what is to be created and delivered to the client, the designer is drawing a box around what they are obligated to produce.  However, I believe that a lot of the analysis work and documents that a designer creates during the course of a project should be given to the client in a polished, professional looking format.

If a designer proposes to provide a client with a detailed design, construction details, and planting lists, they have defined exactly what they need to produce and deliver.  If in the course of client and site analysis, they produce charts, drawings, or other analytical materials that document their thinking and logic behind the design, these materials should be considered for inclusion in the client deliverables.  There are several reasons for this.  First, they demonstrate the thought and logic that was put into the development of the design.  Second, they demonstrate the value added by the designer in considering the variables and alternatives that were available.  The most important reason for including this additional documentation is that if it supports the design decisions, it provides validation of the design against the requirements and other facts that were gathered.

I would go so far as to say that any package of deliverables should include a nicely formatted report that provides the client with all of the information about the project and how the design evolved.  The report could begin by stating what was discovered during the site analysis and client need analysis.  Any matrices or other analytical charts or drawings could be included to support the logical development of the preliminary plans.  Any criteria or measurement that was applied to the evaluation of preliminary plans could also be included to support the evolution of the final design.

These are materials that the designer has already created.  They can be scanned into a computer or re-created with a graphics package to make them more polished.  The intent is to give the client a clear picture of the logic that went into the development of the design and to re-affirm how the client’s needs are being met by the design.

I am a big believer in reusing materials or re-purposing materials.  Once a designer has created one of these reports, it becomes easier to create the next one by simply editing the document for the next client.  This is also true for any graphs or diagrams that were redone for presentation.  These types of materials are easily edited on the computer and reused for other clients.  I always try to leverage any existing materials.

In spite of the cautions about managing scope, designers should be prepared to offer their clients a little bit more to demonstrate the quality and professionalism of their work.  Including the details also substantiates the design against the requirements.