Prototyping – Does it Work in Landscape Design?

In the next couple of posts, I am going to be covering prototyping.  Prototypes are more than models.  They usually have a degree of functionality associated with them to help clarify the design concepts and implementation of the concepts.  I have been a big proponent of prototyping in information systems for many years.  I thought about prototyping briefly when I started this blog but it just did not seem to fit the way that I thought it might.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3D Designs – Too Much Like a Video Game?

A few months ago, there was a posting on one of the Landscape Design/Build discussion web sites about 3D design software.  The specific product mentioned was VizTerra, which I have mentioned before.  The question was about the output, the actual 3D representation, and if the results were too video game-like.  This morning I saw a posting on a website about e-learning, on-line training, that raised a very similar question; were training courses developed with 3D representation software too video game-like or too cartoonish.

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

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

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

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

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

Great Design Process Blog

I found an interesting blog with many references to the design process.  Jamin Hegeman’s blog at http://jamin.org/ has many posts about the design process.  Jamin is a senior designer at Nokia Design.  He has a masters in Design from Carnegie Mellon University.

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

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.

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 Data Gathering Key Validation Point

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

Key Validation Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Landscape Design Validation Model – High-level Overview

In developing my model for a landscape design process that addresses validation, I wanted to include three key components:

1. A high level of client interaction
2. Reusability of project work
3. Iterative processes that cycle back as needed

The model starts with the two basic things we have to work with; the Client and the Client Site.  Each is represented by the overlapping blocks in the diagram below.

Two Project Context Components -- Client and Client Site

There are two key points.  First, the Client and Client Site blocks overlap because they are interrelated.  The client lives on the site and uses the site.  Second, the blocks span the entire project horizon because we always want to refer to the client and the site and potentially interact with them at any point in the project.  That is part of iterative development.

On top of the context in which we are working are four spheres that represent major design activities, processes, tools, etc.

Four Spheres of Process Activities

The Data Gathering sphere encompasses all of our initial client contact, interviewing, questioning, etc. as well as our assessment of the site.  There are other components within this sphere but for now just consider it the initial gathering of client and site data.  Analysis / Synthesis is work we work with all of the data we have gathered to understand what needs to be done, what can be done, and develop a set of requirements.  This sphere encompasses many of the tools and techniques I have described that help us validate our design decisions.  In Creative Development, we are using the data we have gathered, analyzed, and synthesized to begin actual design work.  The final sphere of activities is the development and finalization of Client Deliverables.  These are all of documents, drawings, and other finished products you will present to the client.

You will note that the four spheres overlap with the Client and Client Site blocks.  This represents the high degree of client interaction.  It also represents the potential need at any point to go back to the client and/or site for more information or clarification.

Each of the four spheres overlaps the one before and the one after.  These overlaps represent iteration and reusability.  We can begin work on the next sphere even though we are not done with the first.  However, we cannot complete the second sphere until the first is completed.  We may work in two spheres at the same time or have activities that span more than one sphere.  This is the iterative component; cycling back and forth until all issues are resolved or we have all of the answers we need.  Any work we do within one sphere has potential to be reused in a later sphere.  It may need to be reformatted or repurposed but the potential to leverage what we have already done still exists and should be exploited.

To summarize, we have four spheres that represent processes, methods, tools, steps, activities, and things we do to complete a landscape design project.  In subsequent posts, I am going to go into detail about what is included within each sphere and how the three key issues I mentioned at the beginning of this post come into play.  The specifics will detail how client interaction, reusability, and iteration are key to making this process work and support validation.

Many individual tools, methods, processes, etc. that are included within these spheres can help in design validation.  Each sphere represents a key validation point.  I have noted repeatedly that no sphere of activities can be complete if the previous sphere is not complete.  Each sphere is its own key validation point.  There is an exit or completion criteria for each sphere that has to be met to make sure our design meets the client’s requirements.  More about this in future posts.

Key Validation Points

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.

Borrow Ruthlessly

There are a wealth of ideas we can use to help us gather, analyze, and validate our client’s landscape design requirements.  We need to look at other design disciplines and evaluate how the tools and techniques they use might apply in our field.  We may need to modify their ideas or apply them differently.  Designers in other fields face the same challenges we do.  They also face different ones.  We all have the same goal, create a design that functions as it suppose to.

When you look at the tools and techniques other types of designers use, you may think that they would not benefit you.  However, if you look closely at how and why the tool or technique is being used you may find there is more in common than you first imagined.  Tools and techniques are used in a context relative to a discipline.  That context varies by design discipline.

Just one example is the client context.  As landscape designers, we usually work for a specific client who we meet and have a relationship with.  Many other designers are designing for a generic “target” client.  A graphic or fashion designer works for a client but designs for a target client such as males between the ages of eighteen and thirty.  Within this context, they have to imagine client needs, responses, emotions, etc.  The tools and techniques the use to create a visual and mental image of a client may help us more clearly understand our known client.  We may apply the tool or technique differently, but it may still benefit us.

Sometimes a concept or approach may be used in another field that we should be thinking about also.  The one that has most influenced my thoughts about design is the concept of “user experience” or “client experience”.  These concepts have come from the systems design field for the most part.  They are used extensively in the design of user interfaces to web pages and computer programs.  They also apply to devices such as mp3 players or bank teller machines.  The concept is showing up in many other fields now.  The client experience with a service for example.  A restaurant may provide food and beverages as their primary offering but the ambiance and experience will add to the appeal to customers as well as the perceived value.  I think we should very carefully study how user or client experience applies to us as designers not only from the standpoint of what we deliver to the client in terms of the design result but also the process of interacting with us as designers.

Transferring ideas, approaches, concepts, techniques, etc. from one industry or field to another isn’t new.  There are countless success stories where this approach has been applied.  I just don’t think it has fully been applied in the field of landscape design.  Our approaches, service models, design process, business practices, and other aspects of our field can be improved.  Borrowing ruthlessly from our fellow design professionals is a good first step.

Peer Reviews – An Iterative Approach to Validation

One advantage a larger firm with multiple designers has is the ability to conduct peer reviews.  Designers can review each other’s work to validate the designs against the requirements.  Peer reviews can take many forms; formal versus informal, structured versus unstructured, etc.  They can be conducted at various points during the design process or at the end of the design process.

The fundamental purpose and benefit of the peer review is to have someone else review the designer’s thought process and completeness to make sure that all requirements are addressed.  The “second pair of eyes” review can catch inconsistencies, missing elements, and other issues that the designer may not pick up on.

Given a choice, I believe peer reviews are more effective if conducted periodically throughout the design process.  Catching errors or omissions early and having a fresh outside perspective on the design challenges can help move the design along faster and prevent costly rework in fixing items that could have been addressed early on.  One of the big issues with design processes in general is that the later in the cycle you catch errors the more back tracking you have to do to fix them and the greater the cost of doing so.  This is true of most sequential or waterfall design process models.  Iterative process models with frequent feedback and review cycles overcome this deficiency.  They catch errors and omissions throughout the design lifecycle.

Implementing peer reviews can be a challenge.  Not every designer is going to welcome peer reviews and feedback.  It can be a challenge to overcome the initial resistance.  Starting out by doing post-design reviews or “lessons learned” reviews is an effective way to begin implementing peer reviews.  Conducting the reviews after the project is complete is an initial first step.  Once momentum is built, reviews at various stages of the design process can be introduced.  There is usually less resistance since the precedent has been set and everyone as become more comfortable with the process.

Individual designers don’t have this luxury.  They either have to do their own self-review or find someone capable of giving them effective feedback.  Periodic client feedback and review meetings serve this purpose to an extent but the client is not likely to notice missing elements or some other subtleties that another designer would.

Regardless of the situation, weaving periodic reviews into an iterative design process will help reduce errors and omissions and help validate that the design meets the client’s requirements.

Adding Value with an Experience Concept

I have made numerous comments about the importance of creating a client experience in the design process.  I will try to explain why I think this is an important effort and why it adds value.

As consumers, we purchase at four levels:

• Disposables / Consumables – gasoline, tissue, food
• Products – televisions, music systems, appliances
• Services – design, medical, legal
• Experiences – that intangible “thing”

Within these categories there can be combinations and value-added.  Here are some examples.  Gasoline is gasoline except when the oil company offers different grades of fuel or tells you that their fuel as a super performance additive.  Gasoline begins to take on some of the characteristics of a product.  Tissue is tissue except that most of us ask for a Kleenex.  The product has become synonymous with the brand.  A music player that connects with a streaming music service has value added beyond the product because of the underlying connection to the music service.  The automobile with a built in connection to an emergency service has value added beyond the automobile itself because of the sense of safety and convenience the service provides.  We could go on with numerous other examples.

Experience comes into play at just about any level.  We may think of experience as something that we truly feel or live through such as travel or a concert.  Experience does require a human element.  An experience should be produced by something.  It may be visual, tactile, auditory, or appeal to any and all of the senses.  It should last some period of time.  How long will vary.  It should be memorable and powerful.  An experience should engage the person.  It may be passive, the colors or textures in a space, or it may be active such as the hidden bend in the walkway.  Lastly, the experience should extend or enhance the value of something else.  That hidden bend in the walkway that leads to a peaceful retreat adds to the value of the walkway.

In the typical landscape design project we have the disposable / consumable items such as mulch or annuals.  There are products such as the furnishings or outdoor kitchen components.  There are services such as the design, installation, and maintenance.  The experience has to be created in addition to these physical and service components.  The question is how.

I believe it fundamentally means starting with the context.  What are the characteristics, issues, and opportunities with the site itself.  Who is the client; what are their needs and values.  This context is going to create a gap between the existing situation and the design concept.  This gap, which is what the analysis is all about, will help you determine what experiences can be created.  I think this is where personas,  scenarios, and user stories can be very important.  They can help us visualize what those experiences can be and how they fit into the design concept.

Creating the experience will come from adding to the design concept in ways that impact those who will visit and use the space.  Some of the characteristics I mentioned before have to be added.  You have to add to the design environment the thing or things that will be memorable, powerful, and engaging.  They have to affect and impact people.  They have to last some period of time.  The intangible “things” you add to the design concept create the experience.  The experience concept extends the design concept.

More Client Contact and Interaction is Key

The transition to a new model that is driven by getting all requirements from clients and getting them right (validation) is going to be a challenge.  It is initially going to take more time than a traditional model.  I thing the one aspect that designers are going to have most trouble with is the increased amount of client contact, feedback, and interaction that is required.

This change is going to start in the initial client meeting.  If we are going to sincerely try to get to know the client and understand their motivations, we are going to have to spend more time with them than we have in the past.  The ideation process that has always been the designer’s realm is going to have to be brought to the beginning of the design process and should include the client.  We can use tours, photo or portfolio review, brainstorming, and other techniques to involve the client in ideation.  This will also increase the amount of time spent interacting with the client.

I believe a design process that includes validation has to be iterative.  We are going to need frequent client feedback.  The designer cannot go off in a vacuum and return a week later with a final design plan.  If design concepts are going to be proposed, analyzed, and tested we need client input to make sure we are on target.

A classic example of the old model is the HGTV show Landscaper’s Challenge.  Three designers are brought in to review a client’s needs and problems.  All three go off for a period of time and return to pitch their design to the client.  The client picks one of the three who then implements the design.  In many episodes, the client’s explanation of why they picked the winning design is something along the lines of, “They really listened to us and understood what we wanted.”  Usually, all three designs are good.  Each designer has reasons for their concept.  There are times when I think one of the other two designs is better.  The point is that going off and creating a design after a short visit with the client and tour of the site is a risky proposition.

In previous posts I have emphasize that designers need a broader set of skills for interacting with clients.  Being able to ask questions, facilitate a discussion, and observe inconsistencies are just a few.  Increased client interaction will make these skills imperative in order to get necessary feedback throughout the design process.

The most frequent comment I get when talking about this concept is the impact on the designer’s time and profitability.  Throughout this blog, I have emphasized reusability of materials as a way to leverage time.  I have mentioned techniques for presenting ideas visually to obtain the best possible feedback.  More time spent with a client means less time spent on something else.  In the end, creating the best possible design for a client is the real objective.  Satisfied clients provide referrals and references that increase a designer’s volume of business and their long run profitability.

Balancing Needs and Requirements in the Design

Validating a landscape design, as I originally envisioned it, was to be a method or process for making sure that the design was going to work for the client before any construction actually started.  A fundamental component of getting requirements right (validation) is getting the right requirements (needs analysis).  These two components are intimately linked.  I think what has happened is that the problem (the needs) and the solution (the design) not always balanced and the result falls short of the client’s expectations.  The right design addresses the right needs completely and totally.

One potential imbalance is the case where problems (needs) are not defined or not defined completely.  This is a case of missing or incomplete requirements.  This case can be shown diagrammatically as:

Incomplete Needs Analysis

This is the design-driven design that looks good but does not function well or has other shortcomings such as high maintenance.  It is characterized by needs and requirements that are never defined.  The design can however end up meeting needs unintentionally.  It may also cost more than what it should have if it were targeted correctly.

The second imbalance is where the design does not meet all of the needs.  This situation is shown diagrammatically as:

Incomplete Validation

The design simply does not address all of the needs and requirements.  This is a lack of validation.  The design was not checked against the client’s requirements.  Another possible cause is that the design can uncover new requirements that are not referred back to the client and not incorporated into the design.  This is simply a lack of iterative communication and feedback.

It is difficult to have perfect balance between needs/requirements and the design.  That is really my objective with this blog; to drive that balance as close to perfect as possible through validation techniques.  Validation provides the iterative feedback between design concepts and the discovered needs and requirements that continually refines the design to match the client’s expectations as closely as possible.

Both complete needs gathering and validation are needed.  Getting the right needs and getting all of the needs drives the design in the right direction.  Design ideas are then validated against those needs using the various analyses and data gathered to make sure the design is meeting the client’s expectations.  As new issues arise during the design process they are taken back to the client for clarification and incorporated into updated requirements.  The design evolves through validation, feedback, and refinement.

Iterative Needs Gathering and Validation Balance the Design with the Requirements

Overview of Landscape Design Validation Issues and Process

When I first started looking into the concept of validating landscape designs I prepared a diagram to help understand and explain the issues and process.  A copy of that diagram is shown below.

Design Process Interrelationships

Beginning in the upper left, clients obviously have a site.  The also have needs and values.  They may have a vision.  They may also have some prior experience with landscape design as either do-it-yourselfers or using a designer.  All of the clients “soft” components, needs, values, vision, and experience, combine to form the basis for the client’s expectations from their design.

The designer, in the upper right, completes a site analysis and a client analysis.  That information is used to perform analysis, synthesize the data, and develop design ideas and concepts.  The designer completes the design process creating a final design.  Changes to the client’s site as a result of that design create either a positive or negative experience for the client.

At the bottom center of the diagram are the potential results of positive and negative outcomes for the designer.  All of them in some form are related to client satisfaction and the benefits that come from having happy clients.

Across the lower center of the diagram, the red double-headed arrow highlights the two areas of concern for validation.  First, do we have all client needs and requirements and are they right?  Second, does the design meet the client’s needs and requirements?  Will it meet their expectations?

As I have indicated before, my initial thoughts on this problem were toward 3D virtual reality as a way to validate that the design would work for the client.  Subsequently, many of my posts have been focused on analysis and documentation that can be used as validation tools.  However, the question of making sure all client needs and requirements are obtained and obtained correctly needs to be addressed.

Although I think this diagram explains the fundamental issues and processes, I think the segment from the designer to the design on the right side of the diagram needs to be depicted in more detail.  The tools, procedures, and iterative steps need to be defined.  My August 28, 2009 post, “A Layer Design Model?” [http://ldvalidate.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/a-layer-design-validation-model/] discusses some of my early thoughts on this model.

Elaborating and Reducing Data with Graphic Tools

A designer has to work within three spheres of information and constraints.  Those three are:  the client’s needs which includes the performance or functional requirements, the context of the site, and form or design concept.

The functional or performance requirements sphere includes items such as:

• Budget
• Goals and Objectives
• Priorities
• Preferences
• Space requirements
• Relationships between spaces
• Maintenance preferences
• Access needs
• Environmental considerations

The site context sphere includes items such as:

• Site location and orientation
• Zoning
• Community or neighborhood covenants
• Climate (regional macro)
• Climate (micros)
• Neighboring buildings
• Topography
• Geology
• Soil conditions
• Access for vehicles and pedestrians
• Existing hardscape
• Existing softscape
• House architecture
• Views (inward / outward)

The form / design sphere includes items such as:

• Zoning constraints
• Community or neighborhood covenants constraints
• House architecture
• Enclosure (screening)
• Climate control
• Image / style preferences
• Lines of force
• Regional / local style

These are not exhaustive lists.  Each list could be expanded and elaborated upon.  Also, every project can have unique elements.  However, within these examples, there are obvious areas of overlap within the three spheres.  It is also obvious that the designer has a great deal of information to manage and synthesize.  This is where I believe graphic tools become extremely important to a designer.  Graphic tools help manage the volume of data and help the designer make sense of it.

Many of the elements within in these three spheres can be quantified or represented with hard data.  Some, such as zoning or covenant restrictions establish constraints or limits.  Each information element should be captured and represented as clearly and succinctly as possible.  Graphic representations are an excellent way to do that.  The technique, tool, or method will vary depending upon the type of information.  The fundamental purpose is to summarize the data so it is meaningful and can be easily assimilated.

There is a paradox within this process.  Gathering all of this information and data is a process of elaboration.  However, by elaborating you are seeking opportunities and solutions within the project.  Summarizing the information is an exercise in reduction.  Reducing the data to its essence aids in decision-making.  You have to gather the data to find the opportunities and you have to summarize it to make the best decisions.

Summarizing information makes it easier to manipulate and work with.  It easier to find relationships between data elements.  Common problems can be identified and grouped.  Elements can be combined to create new possibilities or opportunities for creative design solutions.  The trick is to have the data reduced to a volume that is easily viewed, manipulated, and understood.

As a rule designers are very good at using visual diagrams and drawings to represent and present solutions.  These visuals are used to as problem solvers.  They are presented as solutions to the client’s needs and issues.  The use of graphic tools by a designer during the analysis phase will allow them to use visuals as problem definers or problem identifiers.  This is a very different mindset for many designers.

When graphic tools and visuals are used both ways; problem definition and problem solution it becomes much easier to evaluate the two sets side-by-side and validate that the design solution addresses the problems and needs of the client.  This is the ultimate goal.  I realize that gathering all of the data and summarizing it graphically takes time.  However, having the validation that issues were addressed in the design solution will result in much higher client satisfaction.

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.