Finding Design Freedom in the Space Adjacency Matrix

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

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

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

Initial Space Adjacency Analysis

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

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

Space Adjacency Analysis with Specific Negatives

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

Space Adjacency Analysis Highlighting Areas of Design Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

3D Visualization is the Key to Phased Designs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Client Priorities Dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Working with the Utilization Matrix – Part 2

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

Utilization Matrix with Limits, Counts, and Consolidation Ideas

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

Utilization Matrix with Average Space Requirements

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

Utilization Matrix with Adjusted Space Requirements

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

Utilization Matrix with Space Requirements Sorted and Grouped

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

Overlapping Space Utilization

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

Overlapping Space Utilization with Play Area Alternatives

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

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

Utilization Matrix Expanded for Time of Day Usage

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

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

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

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

Working with the Utilization Matrix – Part 1

Once I have gathered both sets of data for my utilization matrix, my next step is to get the client to approximate how many people are involved in the group functions.  I usually ask the client to give me a range.  The result gives you a lower and upper limit of how many people are involved in each activity.  I also ask about frequency; how often does this activity occur.  A sample is shown below:

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.

Developing a Utilization Matrix

Getting a client to articulate how they want to use their space can be a challenge.  However, if you can get them to really think about it and dig into what they currently do and would like to do, you can get a very substantial list of functional requirements.  Assume you spend thirty minutes questioning the client and getting them to really think about all the ways they use their backyard and would like to use it in the future.  You might get a list of uses like this:

• 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.

Prototypes in Landscape Design – Final Thoughts

A few final wrap up comments about applying prototyping to landscape design.  These comments and observations are mostly things I have carried over from my prototyping experiences in the systems field.

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.

Applying Prototyping in Landscape Design

My last two posts have dealt with prototypes.  Prototypes are representations of the design objective or some portion of the design objective.  That being said, almost everything we create to show the client as landscape designers qualifies as a prototype.

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.

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.

When is Extra Design Effort Required?

There are certain components of every landscape design that you absolutely have to get right.  Hardscape comes to mind as something that has to be right.  This means not only constructed correctly but also designed right.  You just can’t easily rip it out and redo it.  Although in the case of a contractor error, this can happen.  The point being that there are elements that are very high priority.  Hardscape is high priority because it is expensive, time consuming, and very hard to change or replace once installed.  Other elements of the design may be critically important.  Preserving a view of a lake, a mountain range, or a city skyline might be critically important to the client.  If your design blocks that view, you have failed the client.

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.

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.

Elaboration / Reduction Cycles

Gathering client needs and site data is an exercise in elaboration.  We want to increase and expand what we know about the client and the site and we want to look for opportunities.  Those opportunities may come from the client’s lifestyle or interests, some aspect of the site, or from the context of the surrounding properties, neighborhood, etc.  After we gather data and uncover potential opportunities the analysis / synthesis process is an exercise in reduction.  We want to take all of the data and information we have, and reduce it to its essential elements; a set of prioritized and focused needs and requirements.  At this point, we begin another exercise in elaboration; exploring design concepts and possibilities.  Of all the opportunities and possibilities that are available, which ones will work best with our criteria and meet our needs.  Paring that evaluation down into a focused design solution is another exercise in reduction.  The diagram below depicts this process.

Elaboration Reduction Cycles

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

Elaboration / Reduction Phase	Key Validation Points	Results
Elaboration	End of Data Gathering	All client needs and site data identified and captured
Reduction	End of Analysis / Synthesis	Focused and prioritized requirements
Elaboration	End of Creative Development	All potential design solutions considered
Reduction	Client approval of Design Program	Focused design solution

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.

A Prototype Landscape Design?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Analysis-Synthesis Interrelationship

One of the questions that arises in discussing the design process is the concept of Synthesis; specifically the analysis-synthesis relationship.  Analysis seems to be more universally understood; or at least people seem to think they understand it.  Synthesis is the gray area to many people.  What does it mean?  What is it?  How does synthesis follow or flow from analysis?  A common explanation of analysis and synthesis is that analysis is taking things apart and synthesis is putting things together.  Analysis is really much more than taking things apart.  Synthesis is more than putting things together.

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.

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 – Tools for Each Phase

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

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

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

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

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

Client Interaction Tasks

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

Data Gathering Tasks

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

Analysis / Synthesis Tasks

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

Creative Development Tasks

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

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

Client Deliverable Tasks

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

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

Design Process Model – 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 Analysis / Synthesis Key Validation Point

The second key validation point is at the end of Analysis Synthesis.  Like the first key validation point at the end of Data Gathering, this is a threshold point to help you decide if you have completely and thoroughly analyzed the data you have gathered and used it to focus your design development.  The overlap with the Creative Development phase is again built in to allow you the opportunity to explore some design options and if necessary return for further analysis.

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.

Landscape Design Process Models — Does the process work?

Landscape design process models tend to be linear descriptions of what we do.  For this discussion, I am not including anything beyond final design.  No construction or maintenance phases are included.  The typical linear model has major activities divided into several “steps”.  For example:

• Research and preparation
• Design

Or a model with more phases:

• Initiation
• Analysis
• Synthesis
• Design

Regardless of the terminology or name of the phase, you move from one phase of design to the next in a clear sequential order.  Each phase is completed and the next begins.  A few authors have addressed this issue.  Some do refer to iterative approaches or the use of cycling through analysis and synthesis to resolve or reduce the design issues.  Occasionally, there may be a reference to iterating back to an earlier phase, but the assumption is usually to move sequentially, phase to phase.

I have been a proponent of iterative design and development methods for thirty years.  Using iterative design methods provides numerous advantages.  These include early client feedback and acceptance, catching problems sooner rather than letter, and the ability to incrementally develop solutions.

The term iterative can mean different things.  First, it can mean cycling between phases such as between analysis and synthesis, refining the data to develop a design program or design concept.  It can mean developing a project in phases, each small piece being an iteration of the development of the project as a whole.  I tend to use the term, with reference to landscape design, as an approach that focuses on frequent client input and feedback and secondly, not being afraid to take a step back and go through steps a second time to make sure they are complete and correct.  In other words, iterate the process until you validate that it is complete and correct.

My opinion is that the linear models provide direction.  They provide structure and give you an approach.  However, the way to move between or through phases should be dependent upon the project and the designer’s preferences.  Within a phase model, customize the sequence and timing of process steps to suit the needs of the project.

The design process as a whole is not as important as the process steps and methods you utilized during the process.  For example, virtually every design process starts with an initiation phase.  It may be labeled Initiation, Discovery, Orientation, or something similar.  For our purposes, this is where we get to know the client, view the site, uncover client needs, gather information, and all of the background activities that are necessary to find out exactly what the client wants and what we have to work with.

It would be nice to place all those activities into one nice neat phase, complete them, and move on.  However, two very real things happen.  First, you may have to go back to discovery activities later in the project.  You may need to review the site again, question the client further, or undertake some other basic research.  New facts have a way of cropping up throughout a project.  We have to deal with those facts.  The second thing that happens is that as designers we start analyzing immediately.  Everything the client says and every observation is analyzed at least at some subconscious level.  We automatically throw ourselves into an Analysis phase even though we are just starting a Discovery phase.

I think technology has given us a set of tools that allow us to circumvent the design process even further.  It is very easy to gather some information and then sit at a computer a mock up design rapidly.  The quality of those designs is so impressive that clients may be ready to sign off on what they see.  However, no real thought or analysis has been accomplished that determines if those designs are right for the client or what the client really needs.

In subsequent posts, I am going to be developing a landscape design process model that addresses activities and steps that support validation.  That model will look similar to other models you may have seen.  What I think you will find different is that it builds confidence at each phase that the final design is right for the client.

The Case for Gathering More Information

In my January 3^rd post, “Gathering Data:  Challenges, Irony, and Value”, I discussed issues surrounding the volume of information you collect when using a more analytical approach to the design process.  In this post, I am going to go into more detail about the issue of how much information you need to gather or should gather.

At one point in my career, I worked in an insurance claims office.  One of the things every claims examiner learns is that additional information can help you settle the claim for less, but getting that information costs time and money.  Sometimes it is better to settle the claim with a few open questions.  An example of this is settling a claim for bodily injuries.  You can settle the claim for some amount or send the injured party for more medical tests in hopes of finding out the injuries aren’t as serious or extensive as originally determined.  The question is will you save enough in the reduced settlement to cover the cost of the tests.

We have to ask ourselves similar questions.  Will more information gathering improve your results enough to justify the time and cost to you of gathering that information?  Will knowing more about the client, site, neighborhood, etc. improve the quality of what you produce, make the client happier, increase your profits over the long term, etc.?  I think the answer to these questions lies in two areas.  First, what does additional information provide you in terms of content or input into your design that adds value?  Second, what can you do with that additional information in the long term to increase client satisfaction and your business?

I don’t think the value of any particular piece of data or information is necessarily important.  There may be important facts such as a client preferences or information about their lifestyle.  I think the real value lies in the connections between the pieces of data.  Given that any piece of information can be connected to another, there is an exponential increase in the number of connections each time you gather a new piece of information.  Given that, I think the increase in value justifies gathering more data rather than less.

Those unexpected connections can be the stimulus to a truly inspiring design.  They may also uncover some part of the client’s needs that were not expressed directly.  One example of this was a patio project I was working on.  The client’s had reviewed the preliminary design and were extremely happy.  All of the design elements they wanted were included.  We had dealt with shade issues by including some large ornamental trees to the west side of the design.  However, very late in the wrap up of the design review meeting the client mentioned how much they loved pergolas.  A pergola was a perfect addition to the space.  It added tremendously to the final design.  The client’s preference just wasn’t discovered early enough.  Adding the pergola was not a major issue.  We were able to modify the design to include it.  However, that missing piece of the client’s preferences could have been an expensive change or add-on.

The second part of the value of additional information is how you can use it to increase your business.  I have a couple of thoughts on this topic.  First, if you spend a lot of time really understanding the client, you are making an investment in the future.  If you do work for the client in the future you don’t need to go through the full research and analysis process with them again.  You obviously have to acquaint yourself with any changes in their situation or note if things have changed.  Hopefully, you will have stayed in touch with the client at some level since you did the first job with them.  Repeat business with a client leverages the value of the information you have already gathered.

Second, noting everything about the client’s site gives you an opportunity to suggest additional work in conjunction with the current project or in the future.  While reviewing a backyard for a makeover you may note the side yard is in need of work also.  You could suggest adding on a walkway and additional bedding to dress up this access to the new backyard.  Another example would be taking some additional pictures of the client’s site and when the project is over give them a digitally enhanced photo suggesting some other improvements they might want to make next year.

I think there is a strong case to be made for gathering more information rather than less.  Investing time to gather more information will give you more to work with in the current project and secondly, information you can use to either expand the scope of the project or create new business opportunities in the future.

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.