What if Design Validation Doesn’t Work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3D Visualization is the Key to Phased Designs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Design Boundaries and the Validation Process

Design is partially an opportunity to make sense of something.  It is a chance to understand an environment, a space, a client, and a myriad of other things related to the project.  Design is also an opportunity to change something.  In the case of landscape design, that something is usually the space.  You can seldom change the environment.  You can disguise or enhance it, make it more attractive, make it more pleasant, and work within its constraints in other ways.  You cannot change the context of the site.  A space is located within the confines of its neighborhood, community, etc.  Although you might be able to change the client via education, logic, and reason, that usually isn’t our primary focus.

Analysis is the part of design where you make sense of things.  You are looking at the client, context, environment, and everything else that might possibly affect your design.  A fundamental part of analysis is determining boundaries.  Those boundaries are where you cannot change things.  They limit you.  They constrain you.  They challenge you.  They test your design creativity.  Analysis is learning and knowing everything you can about a site and client and it is also knowing where your boundaries lie.  What can you not do and what can you not change.  There are multiple boundaries.  There are the physical boundaries of the property.  There are the contextual boundaries of the location.  The client’s taste, preferences, and budget impose boundaries.  So where is the room for creativity?

The design process and design product are intertwined but two very distinct things.  Knowing what is within your sphere of influence and what is outside it is an integral part of the process.  Analysis helps you define the working space.  That is the making sense part of design.

Synthesis is where you start creating your conceptual design based on your analysis and your understanding of the boundaries.  What can you create that meets the functional requirements and works within the constraints and boundaries that you face?  Can you push a boundary or take it to its absolute limits?  Can you make a boundary inconsequential by creatively working around it?  Boundaries and constraints create challenges but they give us the opportunity to develop creative solutions.

Part of the design validation process is making sure that you have worked within your constraints and stayed within the boundaries that were imposed on you.  Your design program should have noted the imposed limitations, constraints, boundaries, etc.  However, you should begin validating against them during synthesis when you are developing conceptual designs.  Design validation is applied to the design to make sure that the design will work for the client and that the design does not exceed the project boundaries.

Can You Afford to Expand Your Perspective?

If you are use to working in plan view, you typically have a base plan that encompasses the client’s property or maybe just the space you are working in.  You will probably take into account what is outside the perimeter of that base plan through your site analysis.  You may try to capitalize on views or block them.  You may create barriers to wind or noise.  Those offsite elements are just not directly addressed in plan view.  You may discuss how your design takes advantage of the fabulous view behind the property in the client presentation, but that portion is “off the page” so to speak in terms of the plan view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 – 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.

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.