See More of the Iceberg

The typical perception of the design process entails the designer visiting the client and their site, taking notes and measurements, and coming back with the design for the client.  This is the iceberg problem.  Ninety percent of what we do as landscape designers is below the surface.  We need to make that ninety percent more visible.  My process model includes a substantial amount of client interaction.  This includes client presentations and agreements with the design program and the preliminary design.  I have also suggested more frequent client interaction.  These types of activities make our work more visible to the client.  We are not just showing up with a finished design.  They are seeing the interim steps and are being involved at different stages of the process.

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

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

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.

Post Project Reviews – Validation and Verification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reusability and Consistency

In numerous posts, I have stated the benefits of reusing materials.  When you are creating a proposal, it is usually easier to edit an old one and modify it than to start from scratch.  Maybe on old mind map or adjacency analysis from another job can be reused.  If you take advantage of the deliverables and analysis you have already done, you can leverage your time.

Reusing materials has another advantage though.  It leads to consistency.  After I create my initial proposal or client report, each time I modify it, I carry all of the same formatting and appearance features forward.  That means that all of my client correspondence looks the same.  This makes you look professional.  When clients get materials from you they know what to expect.  They are familiar with your documents.

Reusing materials can be taken to an even more granular level.  In my prior to posts I discussed using base plans and digit photos as tools you could use to overlay with text and graphics for client presentations.  When you use this approach, you could use many tools.  I usually prefer PowerPoint.  It is easy and very flexible.  However, it has another advantage.

If I am working on a new set of digital photos for a client, I car reuse the graphics and text from PowerPoint slides I created for another client.  This is simply a matter of have both sets of PowerPoint slides open at the same time and copying select graphics and text from the completed set to the new set.  You will have to modify the text, reposition the graphics, and adjust the color.  However, you are not starting from scratch.  You are reusing previous work and leveraging into new content for another job.

I did a lot of personal computer software training in the past.  The most beneficial lessons in an introductory course are those related to reusing what you have already done.  At a very basic level simply copying and pasting text or graphics within a document are part of this concept.  Copy and pasting between documents takes the concept to the next level.  Opening an existing document, modifying it, and saving it under a new name is the highest level.

The concept can be applying to almost any software media.  In complex DynaSCAPE plans this may not be possible.  However, I have had opportunities to pull specific plant materials and other figures from one drawing to another which saved a substantial amount of time.

Throughout this blog, I have promoted an approach that requires more complete analysis and documentation.  This implies a certain amount of overhead in terms of time and effort in pre-design work.  The additional leverage that reuse can provide will help offset some of this additional time.  In addition, once you create some of the basic analysis documents and templates they are reusable so you are not always starting from scratch.

Reusing materials will save you time.  You get the added benefit of more consistent materials.  As your library of materials grows, opportunities to leverage your materials increase dramatically.

A Layer Design Validation Model?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Validation – the Impact on Proposals and Pricing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expanding Project Scope the Right Way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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