What if Design Validation Doesn’t Work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3D Visualization is the Key to Phased Designs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managing Your Client with Validation Tools

A major issue in any service business such as design, is managing the client.  You have to manage their expectations, keep them involved, secure their buy in, and make sure you have their full support and confidence.  The tools and techniques used for validation can help in this process.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Can’t Ignore the Future

In a number of posts, I have pointed out various shortcomings in virtual reality and 3D design software.  In spite of the shortcomings, is this technology too compelling to ignore?  Is it the future?  Is it what clients will expect from designers?  Virtual reality is common in video gaming.  It is becoming more commonplace as a tool for training in a variety of industries and settings.  Airlines have been using flight simulators for years.  The military and major corporations use virtual reality as a training tool.  A popular HGTV television show about buying houses that can be updated to make them meet the buyer’s requirements features virtual reality makeovers.

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.

Design Outcome versus Design Process

The results of our design projects are as varied as there are clients.  Some designs will be “static” spaces such as front yard beds.  Other spaces, such as an outdoor patio entertaining space, are much more dynamic.  I believe the key to meeting your client’s needs is to focus on the process rather than the outcome.  Don’t assume the project is to create a new patio.  Understand what the client wants.  Following a design process helps assure that you are not jumping to a conclusion about what needs to be done.

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.

Mitigating Design Requirements Risks

If I had to state a goal for the concept of landscape design validation, it would be to make sure that a design will meet the client’s needs before construction begins.  The side benefits of achieving that goal are more satisfied clients and a higher degree of confidence in our design ability.  Achieving the goal is largely dependent upon getting all client requirements, getting accurate requirements, and documenting those requirements.  With a full knowledge of what is needed the designer can analyze the requirements and create a design concept to meet them.

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.

Design Process Model – Client Contact, Interaction, and Management

In describing my high-level design model, I overlapped every phase of design development with the client.  Throughout this blog, I have made the case for constant client input, feedback, and dialog.  The process of client interact starts at the first meeting.  In this particular post, I am focusing on the interaction that goes on after that first meeting.

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.

Design Process Model – The Creative Development Key Validation Point

The third key validation point is at the end of Creative Development.  Like the first two key validation points at the end of Data Gathering and Analysis / Synthesis, this is a threshold point to help you decide if you conceived a preliminary design that addresses all client needs, site issues and opportunities, and the elements in your design program.  The overlap with the Analysis / Synthesis phase is again built in to allow you the opportunity to conduct further analysis if you feel it is warranted.

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.

Design Process Model – The Data Gathering Key Validation Point

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

Key Validation Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Designers Who Understand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stressing Function Again

My January 15^th post, A Priority on Function, stressing the importance of designing for function first.  I just found the following quote from Steve Jobs from the 2003 New York Times article “The Guts of a New Machine.”

“Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like.  People think it’s this veneer – that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’  That’s not what we think design is.  It’s not just what it looks like and feels like.  Design is how it works.”

I find this a very compelling expressing of my passion which is to make sure that our designs will work for the client before they are built.

A Priority on Function

There are obviously many aspects to consider when gathering client requirements.  I sometimes think that there is too much emphasis on gathering client preferences as to aesthetics and not enough effort on understanding the client’s functional requirements.  I think design is essentially all about function.  The purpose of the space should direct and focus the design concept.  This is not to say that we should ignore aesthetic elements or not take advantage of a great view.  Those things just have fit and work with the functional design.

If you ask a client what their issues are that may say things like not enough space, lack of privacy, too much sun or shade, poor layout, and so forth.  Most of the time it is easy to get clients to talk about what they like and don’t like.  The usually have preferences for colors, materials, style, etc.  However, when you ask clients how they intend to use the space the answers may not flow quite so easily or they may be too vague for our purposes.  To really understand what a client needs you have to understand what they intend to do.  You should also consider how that might change over time.  Let’s look at some examples.

When a client says they want to use the space for entertaining you need detail about what that entails.  How often?  Formal or informal?  How many guests?  What time of day?  You need to get the client thinking about what their needs are as precisely as possible and covering all of their possible scenarios.  That family reunion that is coming up in a few years is not an immediate concern but it is something that could be addressed by designing slightly larger spaces and capacity to add extra seating areas.

Another example is play areas.  This type of space has to be defined by the types of play activity that will occur.  What are the ages of the children (or adults).  How many guests need to be accommodated?  What special space requirements are necessary?  Do you need level ground or are there constraints on overhangs?  You may also want to address temporary facilities such as a swing set that can be replaced by a pergola when the children get older.

Another example is the client who states they want a garden.  You might want to explore how serious they are about this.  Are they long-term experience gardeners?  Is this something they are taking up for economic reasons to reduce their grocery bill?  What do they intend to grow?  Gardening for food requires serious commitment.  Exploring their needs in detail is important to establish what functionality is required.

Sometimes functions cannot be addressed.  For example, a client that wants afternoon sun but their yard is shaded from the west by their neighbor’s house and long standing trees.  You have to explain to the client that the neighbor’s house is not going away and the likelihood of them cutting down the trees is low.  In this case, you should explore why they are making the request.  If you get to the root need, you may be able to find another way to meet their requirements.

Sometimes requirements can conflict.  For example, a client that wants privacy but still wants to enjoy the great view.  These types of issues require some creative thinking.  Another common issue is constrains; physical or economic.  Space is a common constraint.  In this case, the client has to establish priorities.  How do they want to allocate what space they have to get the maximum benefit and value?  Other times things just are not feasible.  A site on a hillside, with rocky ground, or large surrounding offsite trees will limit what can be done.  You have to work with the client to find alternatives that will work or to reset their expectations if they want something that just isn’t realistic.

With all this emphasis on functionality, I am not minimizing the importance of aesthetics.  I just think you have to drive the design with function first.  You can make the functional space you create aesthetically pleasing.  This also does not preclude having an early inspiration.  There may be something about the site, some aspect of the client’s lifestyle, or something that the client expresses interest in that gives you an early inspiration for a design concept.  I am simply suggesting that functionality should be dealt with first and then work on the aesthetic elements.

Developing client usage scenarios is an important and useful analysis technique.  Use can use these scenarios to test you functional designs to make sure they meet the client’s requirements.  Once you are sure you have met the client’s needs the aesthetic elements can be added to create a great design the really functions.

Requirements Impact on Design – Part 2

In part one of this post we looked at how the requirements we capture and document seldom match up one hundred percent with the client’s actual needs.  Whatever you capture and document becomes your target for your design.  The bigger the gap between actual needs and what you target, the less likely the design is to work for the client.  You are simply aiming off target.

Compounding the problem is the simple fact that a design may or may not meet all of the needs it is targeted to meet.  This is our skills gap.  Our ability to completely meet the targeting needs is a function of our design skills and our validation skills.

In part one of this post we looked at a large number of possibilities of how the captured requirements might or might not match up with the client’s actual requirements.  There were numerous possibilities.  If you overlay how the design coincides with those two spheres, the possible outcomes increase tremendously.  The diagram below goes back to the original diagram in part one where we overlaid actual requirements with captured requirements.  This following diagram depicts how a design might mesh with those two sets of requirements.

Misaligned Requirements Capture Impact on Design

The original two spheres, actual client requirements, and captured client requirements are the same.  What is new is that the design is overlaid to show how it meshes with the requirements and requirements gaps.  We have four new areas to consider.  First, a majority of the design corresponds with the client requirements, which is what you would want.  Second, an area that doesn’t correspond with either the actual requirements or the captured requirements.  These are the design extras, which came in during the analysis phase for some reason.  Third, some portion of those design extras may accidentally meet some of the client’s requirements that were never captured.  It would be great to think that the designer realized that these requirements existed and subsequently added them but the reality is that this seldom happens.  Lastly, since the captured requirements included some requirements that were not real, these were addressed in the design and become design elements that were not required.

We suddenly have many permutations.  That is really the point.  Problems compound themselves.  Not getting the requirements right in the first place creates one set of problems.  That is the error of omission.  Whatever we do not capture cannot be addressed.

The requirements we add that are not real are an error of persuasion or imagination.  Being overzealous or suggesting too many things or leading the client can add to the requirements without the client’s real buy in and agreement.  We may also hear what we want to hear and take note of a requirement that we think to that the client did not confirm or concur with.

The design errors are errors of commission.  Without the right requirements, we are shooting at the wrong target.  However, we can over-design.  We can inject our own scope creep as ideas flow and we start adding those thing that we think create the perfect solution.  It is just a question if it is really the perfect solution for the client.  Designing the wrong thing is also an error of commission.  We would like to think as professionals we don’t make those kinds of mistakes but they can and do happen.

None of these errors are committed intentionally.  It takes skill to interview and question a client.  You have to know how to validate what the client tells you.  It is frequently too easy to lead a client.  You can lead or point clients a certain direction if you try.  You can offer suggestions or lead a client to a conclusion but you have to be very careful you are not putting words into their mouths or imagining things that they agreed to.  When all is said and done, you have to be confident that your target requirements are complete and accurately represent what the client wants.

The last piece, designing to meet those requirements is really what this blog is all about.  What techniques are you going to use to make sure that your design doesn’t include those extras the client never asked for?  How will you make sure you have addressed all of the requirements the client asked for?

Requirements Impact on Design – Part 1

Many of my posts have focused on client requirements.  There is the issue of how to gather them.  There is also the issue of how do you know you have all of the requirements?  This post is the first of a two-part exploration into the implications of not having requirements right.  Part one deals with the gap of actual client requirements versus what requirements are captured.  Part two will deal with the downstream impact on the design.

Let’s start with a simple diagram.  The circle below represents all of the client’s requirements:

Representation of All Client Requirements

However, let’s also be clear about what this means.  This is essentially a Johari window situation.  The client knows of certain things they want.  There are also certain things they want that the don’t even know that they want.  In both cases, those wants are practical or impractical.  The mix will vary from client to client but you have the following requirements scenarios:

• The client knows they want something and it is practical and realistic (this is the knowledgeable client)
• The client knows they want something and it not practical or realistic (totally unrealistic client about what they can do)
• The client does not know they want something and it is practical and realistic (client just isn’t aware of a need such as opening up or screening a view)
• The client does know they want something and it is not practical and realistic (client doesn’t know about a feature or something that could be done but it doesn’t really matter because it would not work anyway)

Within this framework, we have to apply our facilitation, questioning, interview, and other skills to find out what the client wants.  Some clients are more forthcoming than others are.  Some clients may obscure their true motivations.  There is a huge variation in what you may encounter.  However, given that, you are going to uncover some percentage of the client’s real needs.  Ideally, that is one hundred percent.  Being realistic, you never hit one hundred percent.  Also, as projects progress some new needs always surface.  What you end up with is a situation depicted in the diagram below.  Your determination of the requirements will overlap and correspond with a large percentage of the needs but not all of them.

All Client Requirements vs Captured Requirements

You can see from the diagram above that some requirements are just not captured so they are never addressed.  In addition, some requirements you capture are not real.  You either misunderstood the client or noted something that did not exist.  These are false requirements.  The good news is that the bulk of the requirements are discovered and captured.

However, before we move on let’s consider some very subtle nuances within this diagram.  First, there are two bubbles; actual requirements and captured requirements.  In the diagram above, they are the same size.  That may not be reality.  You can under or over capture requirements.  That is going to change not only the overlap area but the non-overlap area.  Second, in the diagram above, since the two bubbles are the same size the areas of non-overlap are both the same size.  Again, this isn’t realistic.  Just because you miss requirements doesn’t mean you over-capture requirements an equal amount.  Simply remember that this diagram represents the problems, not the magnitude of those problems.  Third, the bubbles can vary in size where you totally miss the client’s requirements or you add requirements that aren’t really there.  Actual requirements are not totally captured or you capture the actual requirements and then some.  These two scenarios are depicted below:

Over and Under Captured Requirements

The question that most people ask at this point is, “How do I over capture requirements or add something that isn’t there?”  This usually comes from a combination of an over-zealous designer and a non-assertive client.  The designer walks the site with the client making comments such as “This would be a great location for a fire pit” or “An outdoor kitchen would be very convenient here” and the client simply agrees or says “That right.”  Such a scenario easily escalates into requirements that the client really doesn’t want or need.

To wrap up this part we have the following possibilities:

• The designer over-captures requirements and documents those as requirements that don’t really exist.
• The designer misses the mark and doesn’t capture all of the requirements; under-capture requirements..
• The requirements are correct for the most part but some were missed.
• The requirements are correct for the most part but some were added that really were not requirements.
• The requirements are correct for the most part but some were missed and some were added that really were not requirements.
• Lastly, the requirements are one hundred percent on target.

Think about this.  There is a lot of room for error.  We have many possibilities and we haven’t even started creating a design yet.  What is going to happen when the designer creates a concept, design program, and preliminary design in any one of these circumstances?  In part two we will look at how the issues escalate when the design meets the variations in results from client requirements gathering.

Post Project Reviews – Validation and Verification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Requirements Risk

How do you really know when you have one hundred percent of the client’s requirements?  Do you know instinctually?  Does the client’s verbal list constitute everything?  Do you get the client to sign-off on a list of requirements?  Do you prepare a design program document that specifies the requirements?

There is no right or wrong answer to these questions.  The best answer is that it depends.  Focusing on gathering requirements is imperative.  You have to use your interviewing, questioning, and observation skills to solicit everything you can from the client.  Given that you do the best possible job of gathering the requirements, the risks we face are:

Incomplete requirements.  Whether you miss them or the client doesn’t disclose them, incomplete requirements are a recipe for failure.

Inaccurate or misunderstood requirements.  This is usually related to miscommunications.  Not understanding what the client means when they ask for something can lead to a design that doesn’t fit the client.  Terms and descriptions have to be unambiguous and clear.  Asking for examples or asking the client to show you what they mean can make things clearer.

Changing requirements.  Every project creates some new ideas as it progresses.  Too much change or radical change in a different direction is usually a clue that there are gaps in the requirements.  There is a fine line between an idea that surfaces after seeing the design and those brand new ideas that come as an afterthought.

Another risk is not being able to trace requirements to the design.  If all requirements are met they should be apparent in the design.  Tracing both directions, from requirements to design and from design back to requirements, assures that all client requirements are met.

I believe the iterative design approach where client concurrence and feedback are gathered throughout the design process will minimize these risks.  Communicating ideas to the client, soliciting their agreement, and incorporating their feedback into the design are ways to reduce requirements risk and validate the design concept and preliminary design as they evolve.

Client Experience — the Result and the Process

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

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

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

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

Client Feedback –A Key Validation Point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding Opportunities in the Three Spheres of Response

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

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

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

Confluence of Three Spheres of Concern

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

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

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

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

Working in the Three Spheres of Response

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

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

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

Confluence of Three Spheres of Concern

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

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

Use Visual Tools to Manage Client Expectations

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

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

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

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

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