To begin, you select your paper size.  Unfortunately, no standard US sizes are available.  Then you pick the type of board you want to create such as landscape design.  On the right of the screen are a number of filters that allow you to pick from the sampleboard.com gallery of images.  Categories include hardscape, softscape, garden decor, and others.  Within these categories are types.  Hardscape types would obviously be different from softscape types.  Below that there are additional filters for Type, Style, and Supplier.  Once you set the filters there are one or more windows of choices for you to review.  Placing your mouse pointer over the thumbnail image choice brings up a larger preview display.  When you find an image that is appropriate for the board you are creating, you simply drag it to the design board.

Once it is on the design board you can size and position it.  As you add components to your board you can switch from category to another.  You might add Hardscape design elements and then move on to Softscape and Garden Decor.

Sampleboard.com also has very good layout, drawing, and editing tools.  You can use the Magic Eraser to pull the background out of an image.  You can move objects forward and backward to layer them.  There are other Photoshop-like tools that you can use to modify the various images you add to your board.  Also, there are tools for adding shapes and text to your board and you can color these as you see fit.  Another plus is you can paste images from other sources.

The graphic below is a sample mood board created on sampleboard.com.

Sample Mood Board Created in SampleBoard

If you would like to see more samples check this post in the sampleboard.com blog, Garden Ideas – Select your Garden Theme or Garden Style.

Sampleboard.com is very useful.  It has a lot of very powerful capabilities built into it.  I find that fact that it is online to be very useful.  If I am working in the field on a tablet computer I can access sampleboard.com and compile ideas.  I don’t need any other software to get started.  Also, any pictures I take with the table can be pasted directly onto by board as part of the ideation process.  I also find it is useful for marking up site pictures for a site analysis.

I suggest checking out sampleboard.com and bookmarking it for future use.

Let’s start with a classic client interview question.   “What will be different, better, etc. when your landscape project is complete?”  Your client can give you a multitude of answers.  Most of us ask this question seeking to identify client needs.  If we know what the client wants to be different or better, we have defined a need that can be addressed.  But is there anything in the client’s response that is measurable?  Is there a benefit we can measure and track to show how we improved it for the client?

When I stop and think about this question I think there are things you could measure.  If a client asks for a quieter space, you could do ambient sound measurements before and after.  If a client asks for more entertaining space you could measure the space pre and post project.  But are these examples really the benefits we are looking for?  If I could measure the client’s satisfaction with their outdoor space when I first interview them and them measure it again after the design and install is complete, I would have a valid measurement of the increase in their satisfaction.  Unfortunately, satisfaction measures are intangible.  Getting rave reviews from the client is great validation but you are relying on your design to come through and for the client to actually give you those kudos.

There is a benefit for you in thinking about your client’s benefits at the beginning of a project.  Let’s take a look at a couple of examples.  Assume the client is complaining of a lack of shade in their current entertaining space.  During your site analysis you could do some calculations and measurements and determine that the existing space has ninety square feet of shade on an average day between May and August.  If your design increases that, you have the data to present to the client during the design review that your design increases the entertaining space shade from ninety to one hundred seventy square feet, almost doubling it.

Another example might be an unsightly view.  Depending upon the circumstances you may be able to say that you were able to partially or fully obscure it with your design.  There are other ways to handle this.  First, a digital photo of the current view can be overlaid with a drawing showing the fence, softscape, or whatever approach you are using to obscure it.  With 3D design software you would be able to pan around the area and show the client the new view.

Having benefits that you can address gives you an opportunity to use the Feature / Function / Benefit approach in your proposal.  Addressing many specific benefits may also allow you to be more aggressive in your pricing.

This comes back to the real fundamental issue, validation is making sure that client needs are addressed in the design.  Having a design objective that is a benefit for the client, and preferably one that is measureable, makes validation even easier.

As a general rule, bubble diagrams are created after space adjacency analysis.  There should be one bubble for each space listed on the adjacency analysis.  The lines connecting those bubbles or the lack of lines are the depiction of the results of the space adjacency analysis.  Dark, heavy lines represent close or high adjacency, dashed lines may represent some adjacency, and no line obviously represents a lack of adjacency.  Sometimes in may be useful to actually sketch out a bubble diagram to help think through the space adjacency analysis.  Seeing the spacing represented as bubbles may help you to think through the relationships between spaces and make decisions as to how strong or weak the adjacency should be.

There are other things you can do with a bubble diagram to make it more useful.  You can draw them on top of a copy of the base plan.  This will give you some preliminary ideas about how the spaces will actually fit into the area you have to work with.  As mentioned previously making the bubble sizes larger or smaller to show the amount of relative space each will require is useful.  You just have to remember that the actual space layout is not likely to be a circle.  I have mentioned another technique in a previous post [Thumbnail Bubble Diagrams – A More Complete Portrayal] where you place a graphic such as a picture or drawing inside each bubble to represent what is actually going to be inside that space.  This technique simply provides an additional layer of visual detail to help with your analysis of how the space will function together as a cohesive whole.  It can also be useful if you are going to show the bubble diagram to the client for clarification or feedback.

With all of the potential benefits of bubble diagrams it is important to keep a couple of things in mind.  First, there are a lot of “rules” dictating how bubble diagrams should be drawn.  For example, no bubbles should touch or overlap.  No line should cross another line or another bubble.  These constraints are intended to make sure your bubble diagram makes sense logically and that the spaces flow or connect in a consistent manner.  It does not mean that your design implementation will follow those rules.

Second, the bubble diagram is a design and analysis tool.  As such you should validate you input into it’s creation and the output from how you use it.  As stated above, the bubble diagram is usually based on the space adjacency analysis.  You should use the space adjacency analysis to check off or validate that you have address every space and every adjacency and non-adjacency.  The same applies going on to subsequent steps.  You might do an overlay of your bubble diagram over various form compositions.  That in itself is a validation process.  The next most likely step is to create functional diagrams.  Again you should make sure that your functional diagram carries forward the adjacencies and other relationships expressed in the bubble diagram.

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.

The saying form follows function is probably an apt description.  Positioning various functional areas within a building requires understanding the necessary relationships between the areas (space adjacency analysis) and understanding how much space is required.  Other factors come into play but understanding these basic things allows an architect to explore various configurations and layouts to meet the requirements.  The functional layout may suggest various forms that can be applied to the building layout and design.

Space adjacency analysis as it applies to landscape design should also look into relationships of functional spaces.  Understanding how a space is going to be used is necessary to develop the adjacency analysis.  Simply saying that we have areas A, B, C, D, and E is not enough.  We need an understanding of how the space will be used.  A client who wants an outdoor kitchen for use in preparing family barbeques and entertaining friends and neighbors is one thing.  A client who says “our kitchen is the heart of our home, we want the outdoor kitchen to be the heart of our outdoor space” is something completely different.  A request for a seating area can mean many different things.  Some clients may want a children’s play area close by and very visible in order to watch their children while other clients may want the space more distant to reduce noise and give adults some space of their own.

The point is that space adjacency analysis is driven by understanding the functions of each space and how those functions are related and how they may conflict.  When thinking through a space adjacency analysis it is important to keep in mind that the space is outdoor living space.  You have to understand how the client intends to use it.  The client may have more than one purpose for a space.  That is fine.  You can treat each purpose as a functional area and look for adjacency issues.  You will develop a better design by creating a layout that address all of the issues associated with every space.  That only happens if you understand the functions of each space in your adjacency analysis.

A parti diagram does not necessarily represent what the design will look like when it is done.  It is usually not a polished diagram.   It can be very rough; the proverbial back of a napkin sketch.  Parti has been defined as “the big idea”, “the central concept”, “the essence of the design”, “the design approach”, “the core element” and numerous other ways.  In almost every case a parti is described as conveying the meaning, form, direction, essence, scheme, approach, or some other aspect of a design.  If you are confused about what a parti actual is, I was too initially.

The first thing that was unclear is when in the design process a parti is actually created.  The answer is that you create a parti after you have some analysis completed.  You have to know where you have opportunities and where you have limitations.  You have to know the client’s requirements.  You should understand what functionality you need to provide.  You should have created at least some bubble diagrams and prepared an adjacency analysis.  In most cases a parti is going to come after some level of form composition analysis also.  You may create several form compositions that you evaluate as potential starting points for your design.  That being said, creating a parti comes after having a thorough understanding of the site, the client, and the functional and spatial aspects of your design.

The second confusing aspect of a parti was how it fit into the creative or generative portion of the design process.  A parti is described as a vision and/or an inspiration.  A parti is also shown as being a result or an output of one or more design concepts.  Creating the parti comes after developing conceptual designs.  Your source or inspiration for your conceptual designs may come from the site, the surrounding area, the client, the environment, or some other source.  Your client may have a love of camping that leads you to develop a concept based on nature.  The client residence may be of a Spanish style architecture that leads you do develop a Mediterranean theme concept.  There a numerous possibilities.

So what exactly does a parti do?  Why should you create one?  I think a parti is a communication tool.  It communicates the intent of your design concept.  In A Visual Dictionary of Architecture (1995), Frank Ching defines a parti as “the basic scheme or concept for an architectural design represented by a diagram.”  The parti should communicate something about the form as well as the concept.  Ideally, your parti will communicate the experience you intend to create.  It should depict something about the functional, sensory, and/or emotional aspects of your design concept.

I am not convinced a parti has to be a diagram or sketch.  A picture, an object, maybe even a simple storyboard may serve the purpose of a parti.  Which leads to the second question; why create a parti?

Anything that we can create that will make conveying our design intent to the client easier and more effective is a good thing.  We all live in a world of headlines.  We are flooded with information.  We scan e-mails for important subjects.  We skim newspapers for headlines.  The 30 second sound byte is the norm.  Imagine the power of a diagram or simple graphic that you can show the client and they will immediate see what you want to do.  Maybe your plan view does that.  Or maybe you created a perspective illustration that conveys everything the client needs to know.  You may not need a parti in every design.  However, if you can create one, it would certainly add value to your client presentation.

There is one very important difference in how and why a parti is used in architecture versus landscape design.  In architecture the designer is working in a third dimension in creating a building or structure.  That is not to say landscape design does not involve height or structural elements.  The mass of a structure just does not impose upon our designs the way it does in building architecture.  This is why I think our use or interpretation of a parti can be different.

As I said earlier, a small storyboard may be what you need to convey your parti.  Maybe there was an object or something that you saw that inspired your design concept.  A picture of that object may be your parti or a part of it.  Maybe one of your form compositions can be modified to express more fully the design concept.  Again, what we are looking for is a communication tool.  The format or media does not really matter.

One last point about the value of a parti.  I have read in several places that a parti should “anchor the design”.  In other words, when a design issue or question arises, you should be able to go back to the parti for answers.  In other posts I have mentioned the value of graphic tools such as a client profile, journey boards, inspiration boards, etc. to facilitate the design process.  A parti can serve the same purpose.  It communicates the intent of your design concept to your client.  Having your parti in front of you while you are designing will serve as a constant visual reminder of your design intent.

Using PowerPoint as an example, you draw a rectangle four by two to represent forty by twenty feet or six hundred square feet (a one inch equals ten feet scale).  When you create the bubble shapes you size them according to the required space.  You can make any shape you want.  You can pick the best shape to represent each area.  You just need to scale it.  In PowerPoint you would right click on the shape, select format shape, and set the size to represent the scale you need.  For example, a circle representing a table that needs sixty three square feet could by a circle with a diameter of nine feet or .9 inches.  If you want to use a square that is proportional you could make a square with sides of 7.95 feet or .795 inches.  A rectangle would be set at .7 inches by .9 inches to represent the size.

The point of this is to emphasize an issue about scaling in bubble or functional diagrams.  Do you use a proportionate size for the object itself or a size for the space the object requires when being used?  A table is a good example.  The table, with the chairs pushed in may be seven feet by nine feet.  However, when guests are at the table sitting in the chairs the space requirement is more likely nine feet by eleven feet at a minimum.  A grill is another good example.  The grill itself may have a footprint of ten square feet.  If you are using the grill during a party or dinner the space may easily double to allow for room to maneuver and to avoid the heat and smoke.

Given the fact that you are working from your adjacency matrix, the proximity or lack of proximity may well be important in how bubbles or functions are placed within the space.  One technique that I use to help with this issue is to create a shape and then duplicate it in a larger size.  The original shape represents the footprint of the space or object.  The second shape represents the required footprint when it is being used.  I then simply center these shapes on top on each other with the usage footprint on the bottom.  For example, the diagram below shows the space for a table and chairs.  The inner shape is the object footprint.  The outer shape is the usage footprint.

Bubble or Functional Shape Adjusted for Usage

Not every object may require extra space.  You may also be able to adjust how the usage footprint relates to the object footprint.  For example, the functional diagram below shows the lounging area has the same usage footprint as the space itself.  The grill foot print extends out to the front and to the left side since the back and right side of the grill are at the edge of the space.

Functional Diagram with Shapes Adjusted for Usage

Showing the buffer area that will be utilized when the space is being used allows you to make adjustments that are needed due to space adjacency requirements.  Also, this is extremely useful in planning traffic flow, overall space utilization, and space allocation.

There is some additional work in going to this level of detail but it is fairly minor.  As long as you establish your scale in the graphic program you are using and work out the areas required for each functional area most graphic programs make it easy to scale the functional objects.  The effort may help you uncover a potential problem long before you ever get to the design stage.

In making the transition from bubble diagrams and functional diagrams it is useful to have some idea of form composition.  Are you going with a rectangular, diagonal, arc and tangent, etc.?  Having an overlay of the base plan that is marked with the various lines of force that you want to evaluate can be useful for building your functional diagrams.

Consider this example.  The owners have a barren back yard.  They want 600 square feet of outdoor space that accommodates a table for dining, a conversation area with a fire pit, a lounging area, a grill, and a water feature.  The space is open off of a sliding glass door.  There are windows on each side of the sliding door.  Shown below are to base plans with lines of force marked for rectangular and diagonal form compositions.

Rectangular Lines of Force Form Composition

Diagonal Lines of Force Form Composition

In the rectangular form composition there are only lines running out from the back of the house at the door and window openings.  However these three openings suggest a pattern extending from the back of the residence.  The diagonal form composition has twice as many lines since they run in both directions.  My take on this pattern is that the two lines extending from the door opening have the most potential.  My decision is to go with the rectangular form composition because of the three major lines extending from the back of the house.

The bubble diagram I prepared reflects the results of the space adjacency analysis I performed.  The water feature should be visible from the table, conversation area, and lounging area.  The table should be accessible from the grill and the house.  The grill should not be overly close to the house, table, lounging area, or conversation area.

Bubble Diagram of required spaces and adjacency

At this point I am ready to see how the bubble diagram interfaces with my form composition.  I am using PowerPoint in this case, so I simply copy one on top of another:

Bubble Diagram fitted to Lines of Force

Everything seems to line up but this may not be the optimal placement.  That is really the point I am trying to make about the difference between bubble diagrams and functional diagrams.  I want to explore placement of spaces within the form composition to determine my final design layout, spacing, and placement.  The bubble diagram was a rough tool.  It helped me establish adjacency relationships. I need to go a step further and begin placing functions within the space.  The diagram below shows how the functional “bubbles” were generally placed.

Functional Diagram overlaid on Lines of Force

The lounging area is positioned to the right since that area offers the best sun exposure and it is less likely to interfere with the grill.  The table and conversation area were positioned to the right, away from the grill.  The table is closer to the door.  The lounging, conversation, and table areas all have visual contact with the water feature.

The next step is to create the actual design pattern for the space and to physically position the areas more precisely.  This is the final design.  The two side pieces build off the lines of force from the windows and also push the lounging area and conversation areas further away from the house.  The water feature makes a nice focal point and is centered on the lines of force from the door.

Final Design based on build up of form composition, bubble diagrams, and functional diagrams

Using overlays to check patterns and explore ideas is easy.  DynaSCAPE can be used to create the base plan which can be exported to PowerPoint, Photoshop, or a similar program.  Even scanned images can be used.  Use may have to remove the white background color since overlays tend to work better if they are transparent.

Using analytical tools and techniques is all part of the validation process.  The preliminary bubble diagrams were based on adjacency analysis of the required spaces.  These were overlaid on to base plans for form composition analysis.  Finally the selected form was overlaid with a functional diagram to identify the placement and relationship of the spaces.  These preceded the preliminary design and final design.  Going through these steps helped assure that the design was appropriate and met the client’s requirements.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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:

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Utilization Matrix with Limits, Counts, and Consolidation Ideas

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

Utilization Matrix with Average Space Requirements

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

Utilization Matrix with Adjusted Space Requirements

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

Utilization Matrix with Space Requirements Sorted and Grouped

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

Overlapping Space Utilization

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

Overlapping Space Utilization with Play Area Alternatives

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

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

Utilization Matrix Expanded for Time of Day Usage

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

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

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

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

Utilization Matrix with Lower and Upper Limits

It is clear that the special events and parties involve many more guests, which imply the need for overflow space.  These events do not occur very often; six per season.  In this case, season means May to September.  The next largest requirements to accommodate guests are children’s activities and entertaining.  The chart below shows the uses sorted and grouped:

Utilization Matrix with Lower and Upper Limits Sorted and Grouped

Another way to evaluate this information is to tally the number of items in each Use (row) and for each User (column).  That tally is shown below:

Utilization Matrix with Counts

It is clear looking at the column totals that the husband, wife, and children drive the needs.  This is expected.  Gatherings with close neighbors and in-laws are the second largest group of drivers.  Also expected is the uses with the largest number of users are the special events and parties.

There are opportunities at this point to start looking for potential ways to combine spaces to serve multiple needs.  The chart below adds a series of columns to the right that show some potential groupings of spaces:

Utilization Matrix with Limits, Counts, and Consolidation Ideas

Some of these groupings may make a lot of sense and may be incorporated into the final design.  However, before going any further there some other things we should be looking at and considering.  One is the client’s priorities.  Another is space requirements.  In my next post, I will use this same utilization matrix to begin looking at those two issues.

• Read paper w/ coffee in morning
• Relax with glass of wine
• Evening by fire pit
• Family BBQ
• BBQ with close neighbors
• Summer party with neighbors
• Special events with extended family
• Special events (i.e. party)
• Entertain in-laws
• Play games / active play
• Play cards / board games
• Hang out with school / team friends
• Read and relax
• Light gardening
• Sunning
• Children team party
• Maintenance / upkeep

If you can get a substantial list like this, you are far ahead.  The question that remains is who is using the space during these activities.  This also requires the client to carefully think about each activity and determine who is involved and how many family members, relatives, guests, etc. are typically part of that activity.

You might end up with a list of participants such as this:

• Husband
• Wife
• Older children (13+)
• Younger Children
• Close Neighbors
• Other Neighbors
• In-Laws
• Extended Family
• Children’s Friends
• Children’s Friends Parents

You can use these results to create a utilization matrix that combines both of these sets of data; what and who.  You should end up with something like this:

Utilization Matrix

A matrix like this gives you a lot of data and a lot of opportunity for analysis.  Each intersection point with an X marks a required need that must be met for one or more of the users.  At this point, we do not know how many people are involved in these activities so it is hard to evaluate the scale of the needs.  We do have some sense of the range of activities and where some the priorities are.  Also, remember that the client (husband and wife and children) are really the drivers.  All other users are invited, occasional users.  That has an impact on priorities.

The table of X indicators can be sorted or rearranged in different ways to glean some meaning out of the pattern of X’s.  This may help in subsequent analysis.

One obvious step would be to look for opportunities to consolidate some of these activities into common spaces.  The fire pit area could serve a dual purpose as an intimate seating area.  The active play area could provide overflow space for large gatherings.  There are opportunities to create spaces that serve more than one purpose.  More analysis can help make those determinations.

The client may be asking for more than the space can physically accommodate.  In that case, this matrix can be used as a tool for the client to make decisions about importance or priorities.  Tallying the number of X’s in the table for each need and for each group of users will give you some sense of importance and scale.  However, those tallies are not precise measures.  Graphing some of the data may help in the analysis and may help uncover some patterns in the data.

My next couple of posts will deal with further analysis of this matrix.  Some of the techniques mentioned above will be explored in more detail along with some other types of analysis.

Getting client requirements is crucial.  Having a design methodology with an approach to gathering requirements is extremely important but probably more important is having a toolkit of methods and approaches you can apply in different circumstances.  One size does not fit all in design methodologies.  The major thing to keep in mind is that you must gather all client requirements, gather them completely, and gather them accurately.  Finding the mix of tools and approaches that will allow you to accomplish this comes with experience and practice.

I would not tell a client I am going to prototype their design or some portion of their design.  However, I would use a prototyping approach if it was appropriate and it would allow me to draw out and/or confirm some of the client’s needs.  If I was doing a physical representation with stakes, cord, boxes, and other materials, I might describe it as a walkthrough or simulation.  The approach is the same; I just am not bogged down in the use of the term prototype.

As I said in an earlier post, almost everything we create to represent the client’s design is a prototype.  These artifacts just have different levels of visual and functional fidelity.  A simple plan view is a prototype.  If I can use that plan view to validate the client’s requirements there is no reason to go further.  However, if the client continues to waver or expresses concerns, I may have to dig into my toolbox and apply a creative approach to representing the design that will communicate the design intent and how it meets the client’s needs.

Some prototyping can be done with either 2D or 3D design software.  Other prototypes may be visually enhanced photos.  Physical models take time and talent but, if you know what you are doing and are good at it, giving the client a scale model can be impressive.  Simulating areas and/or spaces with objects, lines, and other materials is a good way to give the client a sense of space and proportion.  The point is you need to determine what you need to convey, how much fidelity you need, and the best way to convey it.

Having the right tools and knowing which tool to use is important.  In addition to DynaSCAPE, VizTerra, DesignWare, and other landscape design packages I use other tools to augment my design analysis and presentations.  Software such as PowerPoint, Excel, Work, Visio, Photoshop and others allow me to produce analytic materials and client presentation materials.  They can play a role in prototyping if they allow you to create a representation you can use to convey what you need.  I typically use the tool that will work best for what I need to accomplish whether it be analysis, design, or creating a prototype.  However, I always keep in mind how I might be able to leverage that material later in the project.

Making the choice to use physical representations with rope, cord, hose, stakes, boxes, etc. is a little more difficult.  Deciding when to use physical representation is primarily a matter of experience and ability to read what the client needs.  There are clients who just cannot visualize anything.  Even with a plan view, enhanced digital photos, drawings/sketches, and other representations, they just cannot sense or visualize how it will work, how much space will be available, etc.  In some cases, you might decide to use a physical representation in order to convince the client that their ideas will not work or you want to show them an alternative approach.  Whatever the motivation for a physical representation, you need to decide how much effort to put into it to create the level of functional or visual fidelity to meet your needs.

Prototypes do work.  The key is to use the right tool or technique at the right time for the project.

In my first post on this topic, I mentioned that I have been a big proponent of prototypes for many years.  However, this was in the context of information systems.  I did not see an immediate fit for prototypes within landscape design.  In thinking about prototyping from the standpoint of how they are used and their varying levels of fidelity, I think the prototyping approach is actually used within the landscape design field.  It just may not be used consciously.  Let’s look at some examples.

First, assume you get a call from a homeowner who wants a consultation on what is feasible in their backyard.  They have limited space.  They would really like a pool but they need a deck or patio for entertaining.  They just don’t see how it could work.  Assume you meet with the client, make some measurements, and evaluate the space.  Since this is a simple consultation, you grab your note pad and sketch out a rough diagram of the space.  You use bubble diagrams to show how the functional areas, the pool and the entertaining space, could fit into their yard.  That hand sketch is a prototype.  You are using it as a proof of concept.  It has zero functional fidelity and very low visual fidelity but if it convinces the client, it did the job.

In our second example, you are designing a front yard walkway.  The clients want to enhance the curb appeal of their home.  Their current entry way is obscured and offers visitors no clue of how to get to the front door.  You take measurements, get the budget, and get other information from the client.  You create a colorize plan view showing the new front yard bedding and walkway with all new hardscape and plantings.  That plan view is also a prototype.  It has high visual fidelity in that it is colorized and shows the flow of the walkway and how it is visible from the street.  It has some functional fidelity in that it shows how it functions by opening up the view from the street.  However, it is not high fidelity because the clients have to translate from a 2D drawing to how it will look when it is actually done.

In this last example, you have already sold a design.  You are creating an outdoor entertaining area with a large fireplace at the end of the patio.  During the design phase there was a lot of discussion about size and cost tradeoffs and the client made their decisions about how much space they were willing to pay for.  Construction has begun.  The patio area is dug out.  The concrete will be poured in a couple of days.  After that, the construction of the fireplace area will begin which includes side benches for seating.  The client calls in a panic and says they just do not see how it will fit.  They are very concerned about how the fireplace and seating will fit and that there may not be enough space.  Realizing the problem is one of visualization you go to a store and get several cardboard boxes.  You go to the client’s home to meet with them.  You grab the cardboard boxes and set them up, one on top of another, to represent the fireplace and side benches.  You move the client’s outdoor table into a position to represent how it might be set up after construction.  The client can then see a physical object where their fireplace and seating are going to be located and how a table and chairs fit into it.  This leads to some discussion and playing around with the space.  The client decides they really want more space.  They are willing to reduce some of the other yard areas to get it.  They can afford the change and ask you to have the contractor push the fireplace back two feet.  They realize it is their decision and are willing to pay the additional cost and suffer the delay.  Those cardboard boxes were a prototype.  It had very low visual fidelity but moderate functional fidelity from the standpoint that the represented the scale of the objects.

Each of these examples shows how a different representation was used as a prototype.  The first two, the quick sketch of a bubble diagram and the colorized plan view are very common in landscape design.  Using cardboard boxes to represent hardscape is less traditional.  In each case, the degree of visual and functional fidelity varied but was adequate to achieve the objective.

In the first case, you could have taken the client’s information and gone back to the office to create a plan view drawing to show how there was adequate space for the client to achieve their objectives.  There may be cases where you have to do this to convince the client.  Some client’s want more detail or want more precise drawings.  You have to judge the client and determine what will work for the client and your objective.

In the second example, there are other approaches that could have been taken.  You probably would make the plan view drawing anyway.  Colorizing it was an enhancement that may or may not have been necessary.  The plan view would show how the space was opened up and how the new walkway was more clearly defined.  Colorizing just adds to the visual fidelity in that it shows space relationships between hardscape and softscape more clearly.  It may also show the client how you are working in their preferred color scheme.  There may be cases where the client just cannot make the 2D to 3D translation and creating a 3D walkthrough may be necessary.  This is again something you have to determine for each client and project.

In the last example, objects were used to represent hardscape objects within the design.  You may be need to get creative when you to try to physically model something.  Sheets, plastic sheeting, or large sheets of brown wrapping paper can be used to represent walls or fences.  They can also be laid out to represent walkways.  A trash can may be used to represent a water feature.  Hose or cord can be laid out to represent bedding edges.  There are endless possibilities.  You just have to determine which design elements you need to represent and then what you can use to represent them.

All of these examples of prototyping also demonstrate how prototyping can be applied at different stages of a project.  In the first example, it was used as a proof of concept.  The second example showed how it was used to convey the design result.  The third example showed how prototyping can clarify issues and/or determine if changes are needed during construction.

None of the examples dealt with prototyping as a means of facilitating requirements gathering.  This is probably one of the most useful applications of prototyping.  Being able to show clients a prototype representation of some portion of their design may help the client clarify what they want and allow the designer to explore ideas that the client has not expressly stated.  What you prototype and how you prototype really depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Prototyping can answer questions.

Bringing in stakes and cord to mark off different functional areas can help the client understand how their new space will be proportioned and how it will flow.  If there are questions about how confining a fence or wall will be, one approach might be to hang clear plastic sheeting in one area and a more solid material in another to give the client a sense of how different materials can provide varying degrees of transparency.  That same question might apply to the fence itself.  Placing some plant materials in front of a sheet to represent how the fence is obscured may convince the client that the fence will be a good functional element but it can be made visually attractive though the addition of plant materials.

There are many, many opportunities to use a prototyping approach in landscape design.  I realize I am using a very loose definition of prototyping.  In other design disciplines, prototyping is more of a way of approaching a problem.  It is not necessarily any one tool or set of tools.

In landscape design, prototyping can be both an approach and a tool.  I have frequently recommended that client contact and feedback be a priority throughout the project.  This provides opportunity to show the client small prototype components of the design.  Getting client concurrence early in the project and often, helps prevent costly redesigns.  As the project moves along, designers should keep prototyping in mind as a useful tool to help clarify issues or develop understanding of the design intent.  More importantly though, the prototyping approach can provide validation of both overall design concepts and specific design elements.

• Show a proof of concept
• Gather requirements
• Validate requirements
• Explore solutions or resolve specific design issues

Within any design discipline there may be several methods or approaches to prototyping.  The objective is usually the same; create a representation of the design objective to show how it will work and/or look.  The prototype may be a car, a retail product, an information system, an airplane, or a web site.  As I mentioned in my last post, prototypes, as a representation, have a fidelity or degree of realism.  Low fidelity prototypes are less realistic.  High fidelity prototypes often appear to be completed projects.

Fidelity is most commonly evaluated on two levels.  Visual fidelity or how realistic does it look, and functional fidelity or how realistic does it perform.  These two criteria are not mutually exclusive.  A prototype can have both high visual and high function fidelity.

How and why these two criteria matter is important.  As a rule, higher fidelity means more time to develop the prototype, which essentially means more cost.  Depending upon your objective you may be better off creating a lower fidelity prototype, quicker, at less cost.  In other cases, a high fidelity prototype may be needed.  A good designer will use the right fidelity prototype to accomplish the specific objective.

Prototypes can be applied at just about any point in the design process.  You can use them before the project is even a project as a proof of concept (i.e., there is room to build both a pool and a deck).  You can use them during the requirements gathering stage.  They can be valuable during design development.  A prototype makes a great sales aid during a client presentation.  Lastly, a prototype can even be valuable during the build or construction phase.

The question is, how does it apply to landscape design?  My next post will answer that question.

Two things made me rethink the prototyping issue.  First, I watched an episode of  HGTV’s Showdown.  In this show, two teams are given a miniature replica of a space to work with.  That space is based on a client’s actual yard and home.  They have a limited time to develop a concept and execute it.  The client walks through the result and judges a winner.  As I will explain in subsequent posts, working in a miniaturized space and working quickly to execute a concept for approval is what prototyping is all about.

Second, I was reading an article about prototyping in user interface designs.  The article dealt with the “fidelity” or realism of prototypes.  In many cases, fidelity is an issue that is specific to a domain.  Realism can be expensive.  You don’t build a full sized airplane model initially.  You start with small models to prove the concept.  The model may represent the visual concept but be very limited in its functionality.  In other design disciplines, it may be easier to represent functional capabilities and leave the visual representation open.

There are many issues here and I will cover those in the next couple of posts.

Manipulating digital pictures can be difficult though.  The standard for photo editing and manipulation is probably Photoshop.  Photoshop is expensive and so complex it is hard to learn and hard to remember what to do if you don’t use it all the time.  There are other software tools available.  There is a very large range of capabilities and price.  However, there is an unexpected new tool available that is really worth looking at.

The newest version of PowerPoint, PowerPoint 2010, has been greatly enhanced with photo manipulation tools that are very powerful.  What makes them even more amazing is that they are included in PowerPoint.

The first new tool is the Background Removal tool.  After you insert a digital picture, you can select it and then click on the Background Removal button.  PowerPoint will then analyze the picture and make a recommendation as to what it thinks is the foreground (keep) and background (remove).  Shown below are screen-shots of an original picture and the result of the first scan of the picture.  The areas highlighted in magenta are areas PowerPoint has marked as background.

Original Picture and PowerPoint Background Removal Analysis

Note the box with handles around the image.  Those are the macro controls to select the area you want to keep.  There are other tools included to help you tweak the selection and fine tune what you want to keep and what you want to remove.  When you are done, you finalize the removal.  The result is shown below:

Result of Background Removal

The final image is in PowerPoint, on a slide.  There are several things you can do at this point.  You can save that new image as a file to use in another program.  You cam use PowerPoint’s draw and text tools to make notes on the image to record your ideas.  You can print the image and sketch ideas by hand.  You can also load the saved image file in a digital design tool such as DesignWare to add new elements.

There is a lot of power in this tool and it produces results that are more than satisfactory.  The Background Removal tool is useful for isolating specific images also.  For example, assume you want to use the container in the photo below but just the container.

Background Removal Used to Isolate Container in Picture

The Background Removal tool does a quick job of isolating just the container as shown below.  This isolated image can be imported into other pictures, used in drawings, traced, etc.

Another useful way to use this tool is to isolate portions of a picture.  In most cases, the focus of your picture is in the center.  However, if what you want to keep is off to the side or in a corner, you can simply drag the selection box around the portion you want to keep and let PowerPoint work its magic.  You can fine-tune your selection regardless of where the selection box is located.

There are other useful photo enhancement tools built into this version of PowerPoint.  I will discuss some of them and some new features in Word 2010 in upcoming posts.

• how much information do you need to collect?
• how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable?
• how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material?
• how do you reduce the data to its essential components?

In February, I did a follow-up to the first question in my post: The Case for Gathering More Information.  Several days ago, I did the second follow-up post:  The Case for Recording Client and Site Data Electronically.  This post will deal with the third and fourth questions:  how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material, and how do you reduce the data to its essential components?

This is a hard issue because there are numerous approaches that you could take to start the organization and ideation process.  One of the most basic is to start laying pictures, drawings, etc. out on a large table or posting them on a wall or board.  This is essentially a mind mapping or brainstorming approach.  Seeing all the pieces at one time together can stimulate your thinking and help you make connections.  It may help identify conflicts or interrelated issues.  The value of information or data is usually in the connection to other pieces of information and data.  Knowing a whole bunch of things doesn’t help unless to put them all together and make sense of them.

I tend to find the paper-based methods slow.  If I lay out drawings, plans, pictures, and other visual data I usually want to supplement it with some of my notes and thoughts.  This means writing out things on Post-it notes or note cards and positioning them in the mix of other things.  Having the paper laid out or posted on a wall makes it visible and it is easy to move things around or replace things.  However, the one thing I really find the most limiting is that it is not portable.  I have to be in front of it to see it, work with it, and analyze it.

My preference is to create my project brainstorming or ideation board electronically.  I have used different software tools to do this.  PowerPoint has some advantages as does Photoshop.  You can even use DynaSCAPE albeit with some constraints.  There are probably other software tools to do the same types of things.

I will use PowerPoint as an example since it is more familiar to more people.  The basic process is to create a new PowerPoint file with a single slide.  If you think you want to print it out later on a large format printer then format the slide size to 24×36 or some other large size.  Then simply start inserting your electronically stored content.

Maybe the base plan goes into the center.  Place digital photos around the edges representing their orientation toward the plan.  Everything will need to be sized.  However, just get the elements into rough position.  The nice thing about electronic format is that you can size up and down and drag things into a different position.  If you want to add comments or thoughts from your notes, simply copy them from your electronic notes and paste them into text boxes in PowerPoint.  You can then move them around, size them, and even color-code them.  If there are pictures of ideas or elements that you want to consider, copy and paste them into the slide.  Size and position them where they belong.  If something is important, increase the size, make the font bold, or color the background so it stands out.

I tend to use the outside edges and corners for other things such as the client profile or color swatches.  If the clients give me pictures or clippings of things they like I can sample colors and build a color palette to work from.  I usually put the client profile in a corner so I keep it visible.  Other random ideas may come up and again I place those on the edges so I don’t forget them.  If I see where they fit in later, I simply drag them into position.

Just like using a wall or tabletop, you may run out of room or have to reduce the size of some content just to fit it in.  You can use the drawing tools to make lines, arrows, or other symbols to help you focus on elements.  This isn’t really any different than creating a mood board, concept board, story board, or any other display board.  The only real difference is that it is for your ideation purposes.

Two of the main advantages of the electronic project board are that you can easily update it with new ideas, pictures, or any other content and it is portable.  If I have it on my laptop I can take it with me and work on it whenever I have time.  If I get an idea for some portion of the design, I can simply pull up the file and make the addition.

Where I find real value in the electronic approach is in two techniques; versioning and focusing.  Versioning is essentially an approach where you create an initial project board electronically and then copy it to start modifying it.  Maybe you have a couple of ideas of now you might approach the design.  Make copies of the original project board and modify each copy for a particular design approach.  Each is a version of the original board but with a different design concept.  You can use these to make decisions or bounce ideas off your clients.

Focusing is a variation where you make a copy of the project board but eliminate everything not related to a specific area.  If you are focusing on the entertaining area, eliminate everything else and build on that project board as a separate piece.  You can repeat this for other specific areas.  This also allows you to scale things up since you are dealing with a smaller area.  When you are done you can copy in each of the separate pieces to the overall project board to see how they fit and work together.

The project board is really a tool for you but you can use it to bounce ideas off the client.  This is a form of versioning.  If I want to use my material for a client discussion, I make a duplicate copy of it and then tweak it for client presentation.  I usually have to take it to a print shop to have a large-format copy printed, but this gives me a working document I can use with the client for discussions.

Lastly, material from you project board is a like many other things, a candidate for reuse.  As you move into the project, some of your content may be repurposed for other portions of your design work, analysis, or client presentation.  Working electronically to compile all of your data and information will save you time, leverage your work, and give you more flexibility to explore alternatives.

• how much information do you need to collect?
• how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable?
• how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material?
• how do you reduce the data to its essential components?

In February, I did a follow-up to the first question in my post:  The Case for Gathering More Information.  This post will deal with question “how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable.”

There are many sources of data.  What the client says, what you see at the site, how the client’s site currently appears, and other types of soft data.  There will be hard data such as plot maps, pictures, or even magazine clippings the client gives you.  You don’t always have control over how the information and data come to you.

What you do with the information to record it for your future use is within your control.  Information and data come in an original form.  You take notes during the client meeting.  You take pictures.  You make measurements.  The client may give you a plot map or magazine clippings of ideas.  These are all original documents.  My preference is to transfer those elements to electronic format.  There are several reasons for this.

Plot maps can be scanned and used for creating base plans.  Client notes can be typed up and become a record of you interactions with the client.  They are also searchable.  It is easier to find a specific comment or fact searching through electronic notes than it is going through sheets of hand written notes.  Magazine clippings can be scanned.  Those scanned pictures can be sampled for specific colors.  Digital pictures can be cataloged and tagged to make them easy to find.  They also be come a record of the “before state” of the client’s site.

Secondary research that you conduct can also be recorded electronically.  If you research information about the client’s neighborhood or some historical data about the surrounding area, any information you gather can be stored in electronic files.  This becomes reusable and searchable.  If you collect material samples those items can be scanned or photographed to pick up specific color palettes.  If you take the client on a field trip, take the digital camera.  Take pictures of the outdoor furniture or water features that they prefer.  Any of those information artifacts can be reused later in the design process.

The most important reason for transferring the information and data you gather into electronic format is to make it easier to deal with the third issue, how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material?  Electronic information can be chunked into useful pieces for specific purposes.  It can be reused or repurposed.  It can be manipulated and converted.  I will deal with that question and many of the things you can do with electronic data in my next post.

First, in terms of managing expectations, we want to make sure we know what the client wants us to do and if it is even possible to do.  If the client wants a pool on a steep hillside property there is probably some way of getting it done but it is not likely to be cheap or easy.  In a case like this, we just need to be upfront with the client and say that it really isn’t practical.  In more normal cases, your analysis of the site will give you a great deal of information about what can be done and how much it is likely to entail and cost.  Keeping the client abreast of what you are finding is an excellent way to manage expectations.  What you find may also require the client to make choices.  The view they want preserved may increase noise levels or sun exposure.  The more you know about the site and what the client wants, the easier it is to get the client to make those hard choices and keep their expectations in check.

The results of our analysis and validation efforts can also help secure client buy in.  Showing the client early drawings or 3D mock-ups can help demonstrate to the client that they are actually going to get something that really meets their needs.  The feedback you get in the process can be valuable as well.  On-going client contact and feedback makes the entire design process easier, faster, and more productive.  It also supports the validation concept with continual client input, feedback, and concurrence.

One last point on this topic.  In my career in the corporate world I worked for a guy whose rule was to “make things so simple your mother would understand it”.  That is a simple but sometimes difficult task.  I took that rule to heart when I worked for the person and anything I submitted to him for approval had to meet that standard.  Everything was explained in the simplest way possible.  I think that applies to client communication as well.  We should make everything we present to the client as simple and direct as possible.  Make it so clear that they can easily understand it.  If they need to make a decision, make it clear what are the choices and what are the ramifications of each choice.

Anyone in a service business will tell you that client management is a huge part of the workload and emphasis.  There are good reasons for that.  We are selling a service and the client expects us to deliver.  Leveraging what we do for the analysis and validation process can make client management easier and in the process provide the validation feedback we need.

Finding or creating the perfect focal point for a backyard may be a significant element in your design.  Without that focal point, the design may not be as aesthetically pleasing or may look incomplete.  That focal point probably isn’t critical though.  In most cases, it can be replaced with something else assuming it isn’t hardscape.

The elements that are costly, complex, and /or critical require us to take extra effort to design them right and present them right.  Showing the client your design that includes how the view of the lake or mountains is incorporated helps you sell the design.  It also supplies you with the validation that you have met that client requirement.  Walking the client through a design that shows and demonstrates how the walkway, patio, or deck functions and meets their needs is also a validation technique.  If the walkthrough convinces the client, you have validated that part of the design.  It also solicits the client’s buy-in that the design will work.

When something is complex/costly (hardscape) and/or critical (high priority) then a prototype, model, 3D walkthrough, or some other type of detailed rendering should be used.  This correctly implies that extra design effort is necessary to address the complexity /costliness and/or critical nature of the element.  It also supplies a validation technique to help assure that your design addresses the client’s needs completely and correctly.  The graphic below represents the boundary between critical and costly/complex that you need to monitor.  Anything to the upper right of the curve is a candidate for extra design analysis and conceptual development as well as presentation.

Boundary between Complex / Costly and Critical where extra design effort is needed

The premise of this blog is to advocate making sure that a design will work for a client before construction begins.  In short, avoiding design mistakes.  Dealing with elements that are complex or costly such as hardscape, or elements that are crucial such as preserving a view demand extra attention and effort to validate that they really are right for the client and the site.

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.

You can take the same approach with 3D designs.  You simply work with the client’s property or the specific space you are creating.  One of the factors I have mentioned previously about 3D design is the lack of background imagery.  You typically have a horizon line and a blue-sky background in the 3D site view.

However, what if you included the surrounding properties within your design space?  In the case of a client’s backyard, that would mean including the houses on either side, directly behind, and behind and to the left and right.  For a full client site there would be nine other residences to consider plus the street.  That is obviously going to increase your scope of work.  Even if you did very elementary design features on the other residences, there is still a lot of additional detail to include.  You could very easily obtain what you needed from public block plan records and digital pictures from your site analysis.  You would have the opportunity to include visual elements that the client with have to deal with when the design was actually implemented.  If the residence directly behind them has children’s playground equipment, you could include that in the design and show how you obscure the view of it.  The impact of neighboring trees on sun / shade patterns can be included because those trees would be part of your working design space.  The question is whether it is worth the effort to add all of these additional details.

First, I think the job has to be large enough from a revenue standpoint to warrant the additional effort.  Second, are the elements that you are trying to portray in the surrounding area worth portraying?  Are they truly important in your design response and important to your design presentation?  If one of your main design responses in preserving a view of the mountains that are miles away, there really isn’t anything you can realistically portray offsite as long as the view is not currently blocked.  On the other hand, if you are including design elements to block noise and visual distraction from a nearby intersection you may have reason to include space to that side of the client’s property.

Within 3D design software, you have the opportunity to present the view from any vertical or horizontal angle.  Expanding the area to include surrounding property allows you to back the view out to present how the design will appear from the neighbor’s perspective.  That may be important to some clients.

This approach is not something that is impossible to do in plan view.  You could do the same thing by simply expanding your base plan to include portions of the surrounding properties and include the design features that are important to your design.  The effect of the presentation just is not the same.  You do not have the 3D perspective view from multiple directions.  However, even if you attempt this approach in plan view, it is still a question of is it is worth it or not.

I know it seems counter intuitive to make extra work.  However, I think the results in terms of visually showing a client how you have considered the contextual problems and addressed them in 3D walkthrough would be dramatic.  Being able to back the view up from beyond the property line to show views of the landscape from the neighbor’s perspective is going to be important to some clients.  Obviously, the reverse, the view of the neighbor’s property, is important to almost every client.  Given that there is extra work in using the approach, I think the key to making it worthwhile is to establish two things.  First, what is the value in your design and design presentation in including the expanded area?  Is it going to create value and help you sell the design?  Second, what is the minimum amount of detail you can show to convey the issue and the result?  Can you easily get what you need to add enough detail to make the surrounding space appear realistic enough to convey your design issues and intent.

A very big portion of site analysis is looking at the context of the site.  How does it fit into it’s surroundings.  Including that context may make a lot of sense in some circumstances if the site context in crucial to the design response.

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.

Client expectations are high.  Many parts of life that use to be mundane such as catalog shopping are now interactive in the form of ordering online via the internet.  You use to have to be home or work to get a phone call.  Now you can set your phones to track you down via home, cell, work, or some other location.  Your landscape project for a client may be posted on the client’s social media sites as an important activity in the life.  Dozens of people may get updates about what you are doing for the client and how the project is going.  Technology has and will continue to change our lives as well as those of our clients.

I just don’t think we can ignore this type of design tool.  It is too compelling in terms of both power and presentation.  Right now, we may not want to rely on virtual reality or 3D design exclusively.  There is still power in 2D plan views, hand drawings, and other traditional tools.  I find it very interesting that many software tools allow you to take sharp, clear photos and graphics and modify them so they look more “hand drawn”.  There will always be a place for the hand rendered visual aid.  In the meantime, you cannot ignore the power of the software tools that are available now.  Your clients certainly won’t.

I think another component of that fourth dimension, and the on that is not really well addressed in 3D design software, is the impact of different types of space utilization. How the space looks when it being used for a quiet evening at home, a family barbecue, or a large party are unique. The space will have a different utilization pattern in different scenarios that will give it a unique feel and appearance. Being able to get a sense of how the space will look and feel in these cases is just as important as the time ordered events or cycles. The fourth dimension is time but it is also utilization.

I am going to try to break this down but first, in this discussion, I am referring to professional design tools and not the low-end do-it-yourself software tools available at discount prices.  First, let’s assume that we are dealing with a client’s entire property.  In either 2D or 3D software, you have to define the property size and shape and define any existing structures.  In either case, you would outline the property and depict the structures including doors, windows, etc.  With 3D software, you have the added height dimension and the vertical surface materials and colors.  If there are significant terrain changes, you have to show them.  Existing walls, fences, steps, or other hardscape elements that are going to remain need to be defined by their height and material.  In 3D, you also have to specify exterior materials, roof pitches and cuts, overhangs, and anything else that affects the display of the structures.  In 2D, you are only concerned with dimensions, shapes, and patterns of visible elements.  In 3D, anything visible in the third dimension has to be defined.

Moving on, you would depict any existing hardscape elements.  There may be existing sidewalks, driveways, and other features.  In either case, you should be portraying materials, colors, and other visual elements.  Some elements may be more difficult than others.  For example, an existing pool, outdoor kitchen, pergola , etc. all need to be included.  If the 2D design package has a symbol to represent those elements you can use those.  Otherwise, you need to create your own.  This also applies in 3D.  You use existing libraries of structural elements or create your own.

To this point, we have more work defining elements in3D.  The thing to keep in mind is that at this point we can look at the basic layout and visually see terrain changes, existing elements, and change our view of the property to see it from any angle.  At this point in a 2D drawing, you have to remember where those terrain changes are unless you have created contour lines in the drawing.

In either 2D or 3D, you are ready to begin adding new hardscape areas, defining planting beds, showing the locations of new trees, and all of the other things you would do in creating a design.  In either case, you use the software package’s library of plant materials or plant material symbols.  You draw the new hardscape structures and use the library of materials to define the patterns.  A couple of things are different.  First, with plant materials, you can define size in either 2D or 3D, but in 3D, you have the option of displaying the height of the plant.  For hardscape, if there are steps or raised or lower areas you have to specify those height changes between levels of hardscape surface.  The same would be true of raised planting beds.  The material that is used to create the bed would be defined and in a 3D design, you would need to specify the height of the bed walls.  The same would apply to fences or walls.  The layout and material have to be defined but in 3D, you need height.

You probably get the point that you are essentially creating the view in the third dimension.  This is really the key point because that little bit of extra work allows you to stop and at any time, change to a 3D viewing mode, and examine what you have created from any direction and any viewing angle.  What does the upper deck look like from the lower patio area?  How well does the water feature standout when viewed from different perspectives?  You have to imagine these types of views in 2D.  You can actually see them in a 3D design.  If you stop and think about it, in a 2D design you still have to show or at least describe some of the elements in the vertical dimension.  Take a retaining wall for example.  You would include it in the plan but supplement the client presentation with a sample block to show the material, color, and texture.  The third dimensional view just isn’t incorporated directly into the plan as it is in 3D design.

So far, I have honestly stated that there is more input and procedural work in creating a 3D design.  The 3D design process can save you work though.  There is less information that you need to keep in your head as you design.  While you are designing the patio, you don’t have to think about how it will look next to the residence.  You simple switch to 3D viewing mode a see how it looks.  You don’t need to worry about the drop off in the backyard and how you are concealing it.  You can actually see the result of your design in 3D viewing mode.  Secondly, you have less supplemental material to prepare for client presentations.  You may not really need the storyboards or material samples since you can show 3D views that accurately depict the materials, colors, and textures.  Lastly, 3D designs may help you prevent errors and oversights.  That pergola may be in the wrong position due to an existing tree overhang.  In a 2D plan this may not have been caught.  In 3D, it would be readily apparent.

The 3D design software available now is very powerful and creates compelling designs.  Typical desktop computers easily handle the software quickly and efficiently.  Designing in 3D is fun.  You can see the results of your ideas immediately.  You get instant feedback and gratification.  It engages clients.  They can see easily what they are going to get.  This is not to say that you have to make sure you select the right 3D design software package.  You also have to be prepared for a learning curve.  However, the result of making the switch will astound you and your clients.

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.

Why use 3D design software:

• 3D designs are interactive.  You can change views, show movement, and change elements on the fly while making your client presentation.
• The libraries of plants, trees, etc. rival high-end 2D packages like DynaSCAPE.  You can create very realistic renderings of what you intend to plant and how it will look.  Switching to alternative plant materials is accomplished quickly and easily.
• Terrain can be modeled with current and proposed grading changes and depicted realistically as rock, grass, etc.
• Hardscape areas are presented realistically with a variety of materials and colors available to meet the requirements of the design.  In some packages, actually libraries of manufactures materials are available.
• You can add accessory elements that the client will add such as tables, chairs, fire pits, clocks, etc. to make the scene show as the client will use it.
• Water features can be added in a variety of forms such as fountains, pools, lakes, etc.
• Rock elements whether natural or designed can be added to depict outcroppings, retaining walls, components of water features, etc.
• The client residence can be depicted very realistically as it currently exists and any new features can such as overhangs, walls, awnings, and so forth can be added.
• The design can be depicted in day or night lighting and outdoor lighting effects can be added to show the effect.  Lighting effects can be switched during the presentation to show clients how the design will look in different scenarios.
• Depending upon the package there are usually import capabilities to use existing plans or graphics and export capabilities to create materials lists and other specifications.
• You also get the 2D plan view and specifications you would get in a 2D design package.

I believe these are some very compelling reasons for switching to 3D design software.  Should you still use other mediums to represent your work?  The simple answer is yes.  If you are a good artist, a well-crafted perspective drawing will do wonders for representing your design concept.  A beautifully colored 2D plan view can be very persuasive.  Enhanced digital photos of the clients existing site make a very credible statement of how the site will look when the design is implemented.  You should use the tools that will make the best representation to your client of exactly what they will be getting and how it will meet their needs.

On some sites, you want to screen a view.  Within the 3D design software, you can add the hardscape or softscape to create this effect and show it.  This is a great application of the tool because whatever you add is a screen of the external view.

On some sites, however, the off-site view is a huge asset.  Being able to depict how the design capitalizes on that view or fits into the view would be a huge asset.  The only work around I have found for this involves panning the design to the point where you are looking toward the area in the design where the view would be.  Then do a screen capture.  This image can be combined with a digital photo of the view using Photoshop or a similar tool to create a still image.  This just doesn’t have the impact that would be obtained with having the view within the virtual design.  Also, this really isn’t much different than using digital imaging software like DesignWare to simply enhance the digital photo of the view.

I think the point is that the current state of the tools we have available require us to mix and match tools and techniques to create the most compelling client presentation.  We may be able to use combinations of plan views, 3D design, enhanced digital photos, drawings, etc. to depict what we thing are the things the client needs to see to convince them that the design meets their needs.

I have been looking at 3D design packages for quite awhile.  Before reading these two postings the thought about the output being like a video game never occurred to me.  I can understand how it can be perceived that way.  Fundamentally, a landscape is being created in the same manner as an artificial world in a video game.  I think the real difference is in what you do with that landscape.

In a video game, the landscape is filled with characters, props, and action.  In an online training course, there will be the same things but they are being depicted for the purpose of training someone how to do something.  You might be showing trainees how to evacuate an airplane for example.  The good 3D landscape design software packages allow you to replicate the residence, add hardscape and softscape, add accessories (props), and then walk through or fly around the depiction of the site.  I am not aware of any packages that allow you to add people to the scenes.

In the case of the e-learning 3D training courses, people are usually mandatory.  If you were using software to create a training course for a corporation you would not want to use cartoonish representations of people.  In spite of the resulting course looking like a video game, it can depict realistic scenarios that can be used to educate customers or employees.

In landscape design, if you are developing a hand drawing to depict a portion of the site, one thing that is almost always required is to add figures.  This is a very basic drawing technique.  Adding figures representing people adds scale to the drawing and makes it easier for the viewer to understand and comprehend what is being shown.  This is one of the faults I have with the 3D landscape design software programs.  They don’t allow you to add figures to represent scale.  You have to rely on accessories like tables and chairs.

In the post about using 3D software for e-learning one of the main points was about the depiction of realism.  The point they were making was that the buyer, usually a corporate executive, would not be inclined to see the value in something that was cartoonish or overly video game-like.  The tools for developing these types of training programs have to offer the ability to dress and depict people in professional situations.  It would be nice if that capability could be added to 3D landscape design packages also.  The ability to show people in various scenarios such as lounging, conversing, dining, etc. would add immensely to our ability to use the software to show clients the functionality that they want and need.

You can go to the posts on Design Process by clicking on the tag for Design Process or by using this link http://jamin.org/tag/design-process/.  Jamin wrote his masters thesis on The Nature of Design Thinking.  This is a great paper.  I found his analysis of traditional design process models very much in line with what I have been proposing.  This thesis page can be found at this link http://jamin.org/archives/2008/masters-thesis-paper/.  There is a link to download his thesis paper as a PDF file right below the abstract.  You should definitely check out Jamin’s posts.

No space is entirely static.  Other spaces are extremely dynamic.  These are the spaces where focusing on the process will pay off.  Dynamic is a relative term.  Dynamic spaces will need to function in a variety of scenarios, be flexible, adapt over time, as well as provide the necessary aesthetic appeal.  This is a difficult set of goals but they can be achieved by following a process and validating at each phase of the process.  Dynamic spaces need to meet multiple goals.  Tradeoffs have to be made.  Priorities have to be addressed.  Following a design process forces you to go through the data gathering, analysis, and synthesis necessary to accomplish this.

Simply creating an outcome or result without considering the dynamics may provide an aesthetically pleasing space but most likely will not meet the full expectation of the client.  Following the process creates the framework that allows you to evaluate all of needs, problems, and opportunities in a systematic manner so that nothing is left uncovered.

Elaboration Reduction Cycles

The transition points between elaboration and reduction correspond with the key validation points within the validation design process model.

Iterative approaches to design are frequently perceived as being used strictly to refine, narrow, and focus the information we have and make design decisions.  However, part of the design process is exploration.  The elaboration portions of the design process are where that exploration occurs.  Effectively using reduction to narrow information and data into manageable sets combined with elaboration to explore design possibilities improves the results of the design process.  The transition points between elaboration and reduction also fit into the validation design process model and support obtaining what we need to validate the design as we move through the process.

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.

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.

In analysis, you can take a set of data and group or categorize it.  You can split it into more detail data.  You can merge it with other sets of data to see relationships.  You can sort or rearrange the data.  You can strip out portions of the data that have particular characteristics that you want to examine.  The list goes on.  The point being that analysis is a very rich and complex process that has many techniques that are useful in different circumstances.

All of the analytical techniques I have discussed so far provide you with data that can be used in making design decisions and developing your design concept.  A heat map, which is based on client priority rankings, helps you determine which features, spaces, amenities, etc. should have priority.  Form composition allows you to analyze layouts and find the best one for the site and the possible spaces you are considering.  Space adjacency allows you to determine how potential spaces should relate to one another.  Bubble or functional diagrams allow you to look at the ways specific areas can be configured based on your space adjacency analysis.  Each analytical tool provides additional information that helps you refine your decisions and move your design concept forward.  That is synthesis in essence.  You are building understanding and evaluating what you learn to refine your decisions and concepts.  You may develop information from an analysis that causes you to go back and rethink earlier analysis.  That is part of the iterative process.  The nature of the analysis-synthesis relationship is that the two techniques interplay and work with each other to accumulate information that is used and reused to develop your final design concept.

Other things come into play in developing a design concept.  There is the designer’s experience.  There may be a particular feature on the site that can be capitalized on.  The client’s may have a theme or style that they want used.  These are the soft data or qualitative factors that come into play.  They are part of the accumulation of information that is synthesized into the design concept.  They can be just as important if not more important than the data analysis in developing the design.  The analytical tools are the foundation for validation of the design.  They help answer important questions that are the crux of design decisions.

During the analysis-synthesis process, the results of analysis should be evaluated against the hard criteria established for the project.  This includes constraints, budget, feasibility, client needs, and all of the known limitations and opportunities.  Since synthesis is a much more fluid process, the results that come from the process are more evolutionary.  They evolve out of ideation, analysis, preliminary concepts, and other types of soft data.  The concepts that form out of synthesis also need to be evaluated.  However, the criteria is more aesthetic and conceptual.  Do the design concepts developed fit into the style and architecture of the residence?  Do they fit with the image and style we are trying to create?  Are they in line with the ideas that we had?  During either part of the process, analysis, or synthesis, if the answers are not making sense, it is time to step back and re-evaluate.  Again, that is the iterative process.

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.

The design process model I have been discussing is intended to help mitigate the risks of missing, incomplete, inaccurate, misunderstood, and vague requirements.  It is also intended to reduce the risk to the designer that their design concept will not completely address the requirements.  I have addressed these risks in several other posts in different contexts.  I believe that having a good understanding of what the risk are and how they occur is imperative if you want to reduce those risks.

The process of requirements gathering is a communication exercise.  Requirements errors or omissions can occur during the actual communication process itself or from either or both of the two communicating parties (client and designer).  The communication errors can be either errors or omissions in sending or receiving the messages.  They can also occur in the actual transmission of the messages between the parties.  Lastly, they can be errors on the part of either party to the communication.  These types of errors are usually process errors.

The diagram below groups requirement gathering risks into three categories:  Client risks, Designer risks, and in between the two, Communication risks.

Design Requirements Risks

Under client risks, a lack of client involvement or time investment is always a potential problem.  Clients have to understand we need their time, participation, and commitment.  Clients are sometimes unaware of their own needs.  Sometimes they have conflicting needs.  Often they have unrealistic expectations.  As designers, our job is to work through these issues with the client.  On the opposite site of the diagram, the first four items under designer risk are all related to fully gathering all client requirements.  This requires a serious effort on our part.  We have to make our commitment also.  This often entails educating the client, exploring their needs beyond a superficial level, and digging to uncover those needs the client does not state directly.  The last three design risks are process related.  The design solution should not be formulated until all needs and requirements are identified.  There must be adequate documentation and analysis of the needs that are gathered.  We should be able to trace or map every specific need or requirement to one or more specific elements in the final design.  Likewise, elements in the final design should trace back to the original needs and requirements.

The communication risks stem from the errors or omissions that can come from either or both sides of the communication.  Although both parties may agree as to a need or requirement there may not be enough detail or it may be too generalized or ambiguous to be useful as a requirement.  All needs and requirements should be crystal clear.  Both parties may overlook needs.  We need to make the effort to help clients uncover their needs but there may still be needs that are overlooked by both the client and the designer.  Lastly, there has to be adequate effort to document and communicate the shared understanding of the needs and requirements that are gathered.

The design process model includes numerous activities, techniques, and tools for mitigating requirements risk.  First and foremost is client interaction.  Regular contact with the client throughout the project is imperative.  Obviously, there needs to be more contact and richer contact at the beginning of the project since that is when we are actually gathering the client’s needs and requirements.  Applying specific tools and techniques such as brainstorming sessions or field trips provides opportunity to learn more about the client and uncover some of those needs the client may not or cannot state directly.  Field trips and site walkthroughs provide opportunities to educate the client.  These activities require us to invest our time and effort also.  Each client meeting should be used as an opportunity to learn more and/or confirm what we already think we know.

Specific analytical tools and techniques may be applied to the data we gather about the client and site.  The results of that analysis may provide opportunities to meet with the client again for clarification or further discussion of ideas.  All of the data we gather as well as the results of our analysis should be maintained as documentation that will support our eventual design concept.

The development of the design program and the presentation of that design program to the client is a key validation point.  The design program should address exactly what the client’s needs are.  It should include discussion of the opportunities and limitations of the site.  Any other constraints or opportunities should also be discussed.  The client signoff and agreement to the design program should be a mutual agreement as to what needs to be done and why.

It is impossible to be one hundred percent sure you have every single client need.  However, following the process and employing the tools and techniques to learn more about the client and educate them will go a long way toward having all client needs.  You have to apply judgment.  Observation skills, questioning skills, interview skills, and other interpersonal skills have to be applied so you can ascertain where you think you stand in terms of getting all of the information you need from the client.  Whenever you feel you just are not there or that something isn’t right, you have to keep pushing to get more from the client.  This is another iterative process.  You have to cycle through the client meetings and interactions until you feel confident that you have what you need.

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.

You should take every opportunity to integrate the design process work you do into you client interactions.  Showing some of your key results when presenting the design program not only supports the logic of you thinking, it shows the client the work you have done on their behalf.  Using overlays to show site issues versus the preliminary design demonstrates to the client how you are solving their problems.  I have suggested in the past providing the client with a final report.  This report can include key graphics from your analysis and document your design process work for the client.

Showing clients what is under the surface is good for your credibility and a substantial addition to the value of the service you provide.

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.

Initially, your objective for having more interaction with the client is likely to be getting a better handle on the client.  What are their interests?  What are their preferences?  Do they favor a particular style?  What are their real motives for this project?  Do they really understand what they are asking for?  Are their priorities accurate and realistic?  These types of questions help you narrow down the client’s requirements and prioritize them.  They also help you make appropriate design decisions later.

You don’t want to be a pest and drive the client crazy with a lot of questions every day.  Some of the things that I think work well during the Data Gathering phase include field trips, brainstorming sessions, and follow-up site visits.

Field trips to look at other properties, hardscape materials, and softscape materials are an excellent way to discover the client’s preferences and help them come to terms with the choices that are available.  A field trip also gives you a chance to ask questions and learn more about the client.  In addition, if you have any particular ideas, you can show these to the client to get their reaction.

Brainstorming sessions work really well with knowledgeable clients.  They are readily able to discuss ideas and have an understanding of plants, materials, etc.  Brainstorming with less knowledgeable clients requires you to find ways to stimulate the discussion.  This can include your portfolio, pictures, samples, etc.  Brainstorming works best if you can do it in the space you are working in.  You just have to be able to take notes and deal with any materials you have with you for the session.  Again, this is a good way to find out more about the client as well as develop the client’s personal involvement in the project.

Going back to the client site for a follow-up visit or two isn’t a bad idea either.  You may have the opportunity to talk to the client in a different context and in a more relaxed manner.  Even if you don’t need any particular information from the site, dropping by for a second look gives you time with the client and an opportunity to learn more about them.

When you are in the Analysis / Synthesis phase you may need additional client input.  For example, after you start looking at space allocation, adjacency, priorities, etc. you may need to review your conclusions with the client.  For these types of meetings where you need input and have questions, I find it best to be well prepared.  Make sure the issues or questions are clear.  You should be able to explain the issue or question to the client so that they really understand it.  Second, I always try to come prepared with a solution to offer.  Obviously if it is a major issue, you want to help the client work through it.  For more general issues or questions, you should have a recommendation but try to get the client to make the decision.  Be sure to have any supporting materials including pictures, drawings, diagrams, etc. to support your presentation.  These not only help the client understand the topic they also demonstrate the work you have done for them so far.

At the end of Analysis / Synthesis, you should meet with the client to review the design program and obtain their concurrence.  Your presentation of the design program represents the culmination of everything you have learned and concluded about the client and site to this point.  The client’s acceptance or agreement to the design program represents their approval of your interpretation of their needs and requirements.  You should also be well prepared for this presentation.  You should have all support evidence available that you used in creating the design program.  It can be extremely useful to be able to refer back to previous meetings, discussions, field trips, and other interactions with the client while making your presentation.

Questions and issues are less likely to come up during the Creative Development phase but they can on occasion.  The same process and recommendations suggested above apply here also; be clear and be prepared.  The major client interaction in Creative Development is the presentation of the preliminary design.  Most of my comments above about presenting the design program apply here also.  Your design should be easy to justify based on the design program and other supporting materials you have gathered or prepared.  Referring to things the client has said during previous sessions makes this presentation that much easier.

There are numerous advantages to spending more time with the client.  Granted it does take up more of your time.  I believe the result is a design that is better targeted to the client’s needs because you have spent the time to fully and completely understand what those needs are.  You also have a client that has seen you work for them and with them throughout the project.  You aren’t just presenting a design; you are presenting the result of a collaborative effort.

Key Validation Points

The result or output of Creative Development is a preliminary design to be presented to the client.  This would include any supporting, collateral materials such as digitally enhanced photos, drawings, display boards, samples, etc.

Chances are that by this point you may have already started developing some of these materials.  It can be useful during the last part of Analysis / Synthesis to explore design concepts.  Any of these preliminary materials should be reused or revised if appropriate.  Otherwise, you can begin developing your preliminary design based on the results of the form compositions, functional diagrams, supporting analysis materials, and design program you have created.

Whatever you choose to develop and use in your preliminary design presentation should be reviewed thoroughly to validate that it supports your findings and conclusions developed to this point.  Some evidence of a need or opportunity that you discovered should support each element, feature, benefit, and aspect of the preliminary design.  Going through this exercise is extremely useful in preparing for the client presentation.  You will be fully prepared to explain and justify your design decisions.

A completely validated preliminary design sets the stage for the final phase of design development, which is the creation of your Client Deliverables.  Everything you have done to this point suggests that you have a design concept that should meet all client needs and expectations.  There should not be any issues that would preclude the client from accepting your design.  All of you preliminary design materials can be finalized for presentation to the client.  The preliminary design materials should be reused as much as possible in creating your final deliverables to the client.

Validating you data, analysis, conclusions, and designs minimizes the amount of rework you may need to do.  It is unlikely that the client will completely reject a preliminary design that is thoroughly validated against their needs and the specific requirements of their site.  Also, the high-level model provides for constant client contact and feedback.  Prior to the presentation of the preliminary design, there should have been client contact and feedback from the initial meeting and the review of the design program.  This would be the absolute minimum of client contact.  Interim contact and review sessions should be conducted whenever more information is needed of if it appropriate to obtain client buy-in and concurrence on specific issues.

My last three posts have dealt with the key validation points.  In the next post, I will be reviewing the client contact activities and how they fit into the key validation points and the four phases.

Key Validation Points

In the Analysis / Synthesis phase you are going to be massaging the data you gathered to start making design decisions.  Which tools and techniques you apply will vary from project to project.  Your objective is to take the raw data you have gathered and apply various analytical techniques to synthesize that data to start making design decisions.  Those decisions will relate to form, space allocation, space relationships, and other layout issues.  Client needs will be prioritized.  Cost tradeoffs may need to be made.  Analysis will produce information that helps you refine design decisions.  Each method, tool, or technique you use may generate information that suggests the need for revising the decisions you have already made.  This is the synthesis process; weaving and blending analytical results with the data you have gathered to develop the best overall design decisions.

I will be going into more detail about specific methods for this phase in upcoming posts.  The validation issues and questions at the end of this phase are related to making sure that you have addressed the all the data you gathered and used it to make justifiable design decisions.  The analytical methods you use should provide ample evidence that your decisions to allocate space in a particular manner or relate one or more spaces in a specific way are justified.  They should justify any prioritization or tradeoffs you made.  You should be able to point to specific issues that were raised in Data Gathering and see how they were resolved in Analysis / Synthesis.  Likewise, you should be able to trace your analysis of opportunities and see how they were evaluated and addressed.  You may also find that Analysis / Synthesis raised questions that required you to go back to Data Gathering.  That is a natural part of validation.

As I stated earlier, I will address specific methods, tools, and techniques.  However, two particular tools deserve mention.  First, during Analysis / Synthesis you should document you site analysis.  Formally, summarizing all of your results is useful for a couple of reasons.  First, it gives you a chance to review everything and make sure nothing was overlooked.  Second, formally summarizing it into a presentable document can add value to your services if you present the results to the client when the project is complete.  Not only do they have a record of the state of the site as you found it, they also can receive your recommendations for things that can be done in the future.  Lastly, the documented site analysis can serve as a validation tool by checking the results of your design against it to make sure you have addressed all of the issues and opportunities.

The second tool is the client profile.  I have mentioned in other posts that having a high-level graphic profile of your client in front of you can be valuable while working on the project.  It helps you keep the client in the forefront of your mind while developing the design.  A major part of that profile should be the client’s usage scenarios; the activities they plan for their space.  Including these also keeps these in the forefront of your design.

The result of Analysis / Synthesis should be your design program.  The design program should specify exactly what you intend to do for the client.  This is more than a list of bullet points or an outline.  It should include a description of what the outcome will be and how it will be achieved.  What will be changed, created, removed, remodeled, etc. to create the design.  It should paint a picture of the future state but in the process describe how that change will occur.  Your final validation should be to trace through your design program to make sure that the client’s needs are addressed and that all of the site issues and opportunities are addressed.

The last key validation point is Creative Development.  I will address that in my next post.

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.