The Design Parti – A Communication Tool

A concept that I have been intending to write about for some time is “parti”.   A parti is usually a sketch, diagram, drawing, doodle, or some other graphic that represents the direction, concept, or theme of a design.  The concept of parti is common in architecture.  It is also used in other design disciplines.  It is seldom mentioned in conjunction with landscape design however.  That is part of the reason why I have not written about this concept until now.  The other reason is that a parti is a vague concept.

A parti diagram does not necessarily represent what the design will look like when it is done.  It is usually not a polished diagram.   It can be very rough; the proverbial back of a napkin sketch.  Parti has been defined as “the big idea”, “the central concept”, “the essence of the design”, “the design approach”, “the core element” and numerous other ways.  In almost every case a parti is described as conveying the meaning, form, direction, essence, scheme, approach, or some other aspect of a design.  If you are confused about what a parti actual is, I was too initially.

The first thing that was unclear is when in the design process a parti is actually created.  The answer is that you create a parti after you have some analysis completed.  You have to know where you have opportunities and where you have limitations.  You have to know the client’s requirements.  You should understand what functionality you need to provide.  You should have created at least some bubble diagrams and prepared an adjacency analysis.  In most cases a parti is going to come after some level of form composition analysis also.  You may create several form compositions that you evaluate as potential starting points for your design.  That being said, creating a parti comes after having a thorough understanding of the site, the client, and the functional and spatial aspects of your design.

The second confusing aspect of a parti was how it fit into the creative or generative portion of the design process.  A parti is described as a vision and/or an inspiration.  A parti is also shown as being a result or an output of one or more design concepts.  Creating the parti comes after developing conceptual designs.  Your source or inspiration for your conceptual designs may come from the site, the surrounding area, the client, the environment, or some other source.  Your client may have a love of camping that leads you to develop a concept based on nature.  The client residence may be of a Spanish style architecture that leads you do develop a Mediterranean theme concept.  There a numerous possibilities.

So what exactly does a parti do?  Why should you create one?  I think a parti is a communication tool.  It communicates the intent of your design concept.  In A Visual Dictionary of Architecture (1995), Frank Ching defines a parti as “the basic scheme or concept for an architectural design represented by a diagram.”  The parti should communicate something about the form as well as the concept.  Ideally, your parti will communicate the experience you intend to create.  It should depict something about the functional, sensory, and/or emotional aspects of your design concept.

I am not convinced a parti has to be a diagram or sketch.  A picture, an object, maybe even a simple storyboard may serve the purpose of a parti.  Which leads to the second question; why create a parti?

Anything that we can create that will make conveying our design intent to the client easier and more effective is a good thing.  We all live in a world of headlines.  We are flooded with information.  We scan e-mails for important subjects.  We skim newspapers for headlines.  The 30 second sound byte is the norm.  Imagine the power of a diagram or simple graphic that you can show the client and they will immediate see what you want to do.  Maybe your plan view does that.  Or maybe you created a perspective illustration that conveys everything the client needs to know.  You may not need a parti in every design.  However, if you can create one, it would certainly add value to your client presentation.

There is one very important difference in how and why a parti is used in architecture versus landscape design.  In architecture the designer is working in a third dimension in creating a building or structure.  That is not to say landscape design does not involve height or structural elements.  The mass of a structure just does not impose upon our designs the way it does in building architecture.  This is why I think our use or interpretation of a parti can be different.

As I said earlier, a small storyboard may be what you need to convey your parti.  Maybe there was an object or something that you saw that inspired your design concept.  A picture of that object may be your parti or a part of it.  Maybe one of your form compositions can be modified to express more fully the design concept.  Again, what we are looking for is a communication tool.  The format or media does not really matter.

One last point about the value of a parti.  I have read in several places that a parti should “anchor the design”.  In other words, when a design issue or question arises, you should be able to go back to the parti for answers.  In other posts I have mentioned the value of graphic tools such as a client profile, journey boards, inspiration boards, etc. to facilitate the design process.  A parti can serve the same purpose.  It communicates the intent of your design concept to your client.  Having your parti in front of you while you are designing will serve as a constant visual reminder of your design intent.

How Many Designs Do You Create for a Client?

An interesting post in the Designers on Design blog today titled “Plan B“.  The thrust of the post by Danilo P. Maffei, APLD, is that only one design should be created for the client; there is no need for a backup plan if you know the first or primary plan is your best work and it is the right design for the client.  His argument is that not only does it take more time; it also makes us less committed to the success of our primary plan.  There are several interesting follow-up comments to the post.  The post and comments are well worth reading.

I believe the best approach is to have one single final design unless the client specifically asks for multiple designs and is willing to pay for them.  In this case, each plan should meet the same criteria in terms of meeting the client’s requirements.  Serving up two completely different designs that meet the same requirements means a substantial amount of additional work in terms of validating that each design provides the same functionality and meets the client’s needs.  The only way this could vary is if the client asked for two or more plans that provided different functions or were based on different budgetary or time constraints.

If there is a need for experimentation or consideration of alternatives, that should come during pre-design.  Frequently during the ideation phase I work through iteratively.  Based on some usage scenarios I try to understand the adjacency requirements and prepare a few bubble / functional diagrams.  Then, I will shift gears and start looking at potential form compositions.  After generating some ideas I will go back to my bubble / functional diagrams and see how they work within the form composition ideas I have generated.  I may start looking more closely at traffic flow or other issues.  Two or three of these ideas may be worth pursuing in more detail and may be considered as potential starting points for preliminary designs.  Preparing more than one preliminary design is acceptable and may be worthwhile from the standpoint of validating the client’s requirements.

The point of design validation is to make sure that all of the alternatives, choices, and issues are resolved before the final design is completed.  Completely validating a design implies that the one and only final design meets the client’s needs.  It should match the client’s style and tastes.  It should include the hardscape and softscape elements that the client prefers or will be happy with.  If the design has been fully validated there should be no need for a Plan B.

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.

The Features / Functions / Benefits Approach

Years ago, I knew a person who was going through sales training for a major computer company.  They used an approach called feature/function/benefit selling.  In this approach you talked about the products features (what it has), functions (what it does), and benefits (why it is important).  I am going to use a built in gas fire pit as an example.

At a micro level, the gas fire pit has many features, functions, and benefits.  Here are just a few examples:

Feature	Function	Benefit
Runs on natural gas	Always available	No tanks to replace or refill
	Clean	No debris or ash to clean up
		No smoke
Electronic ignition	One button to turn on	Easy to use
Wire mesh cover	Keeps out debris	Ease of maintenance
	Safety	Prevents accidents

As you can see, features can have more than one function and functions can have more than one benefit.

As designers, we don’t often delve into the micro level.  Let’s look at the gas firepit from the macro level.  What are the features, functions, and benefits of having it as part of the design solution?

Feature	Function	Benefit
Fire	Creates ambience	Provides subtle lighting
		Establishes a gathering place
	Provides warmth	Makes cool evenings more comfortable
		Extends outdoor season
Built In	Safety	Cannot be accidentally toppled
	Natural gas fuel	Ease of use and maintenance
	Integrated into patio	Looks like a natural extension of the space

I have used the feature / function / benefit approach in a number of proposals and client presentations.  It is a great way to convey to the customer the benefits your product or service offering provides.  It justifies the benefits by tying them to specific functions and features.  The most difficult part is developing the three distinct components.  Features often overlap or are very similar to functions and functions often overlap or are very similar to benefits.

There are three reasons for bringing up the features / functions / benefits approach.  First, it can be useful in a design review or a client presentation.  It is a great tool to use to talk through your design explaining how specific features provide functions that provide benefits.  Second, it is very closely related to the design process.  When you are designing something, you have to look at it from the other direction.  What benefits do you want to create in your design?  What functions will provide those benefits?  What features do you include to provide those functions?

The table below shows how feature / function / benefit analysis ties into Client Interaction and the Design Process:

	Client Interaction	Design Process
Feature	What the client asks for	Client interview and observation
Function	How the client intends to use it	Client / site analysis
Benefit	Why it is important to the client	Design solution

When we get to the point of developing design solutions, we should be addressing how we are going to benefit the client by providing a space that meets their needs, provides the outdoor experience that want, and is aesthetically pleasing.  During the client interview stage, we are learning what the client wants.  Clients usually ask for features.  They want entertaining space or comfortable seating areas.  They are seldom asking for benefits.  That information is what we use to determine the functions we need to provide.  We do this during the client analysis and site analysis.  Creating or developing our design solution is where we translate the features and functions into benefits for the client.

The third reason for bringing up the feature / function / benefit approach is that it also supports the validation concept.  Being able to trace benefits in the design solution back through the functions that were developed through analysis and then back to the clients feature requests is an excellent validation method.  You get the added benefit of having a ready-made template of features, functions, and benefits for your client presentation.

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 – 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.

The Case for Gathering More Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Application of 3D Concepts

I found an interesting article in the ASLA (American Society of Landscape Architects) website online newsletter, LANDonline.  The article, Using 3-D Movies to Portray Proposed Landscapes, is very much along the lines of my thoughts about virtual reality and simulation in the design process and how it can be used for validation.  I recommend checking it out.  The author, Bob Oelberg, has a web site that shows some of his work (http://www.oelbergla.com/index.php) .  Check out the 3D Movies in particular for an idea of how 3D concepts can be applied in design.

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.

Client Aversions – Catch Them Early

One key point to cover with clients is “the absolutely no-way” items.  Every client has things they don’t like.  Many have things they can’t stand.  It can be a big negative to present a design featuring an element that completely turns the client off.  This can turn the client off to the entire design even if that negative feature is easily replaced or removed.

Clients that are forthcoming will usually tell you what they don’t like.  Knowledgeable clients likewise since they have the experience that has shaped their preferences.  The other clients are the ones you have to be concerned about.

Using a portfolio or going on field trips can help.  During the process of discovering things the client likes you may uncover dislikes.  Just like preferences, you can never be sure you have captured every dislike.  With a less experienced client, you are better off to expose them to many styles and feels to broaden their perspective and uncover the potential negatives.

I have recommended an iterative approach that requires frequent contact and feedback from the client.  This can help deal with this issue.  If you do incorporate something in the design that the client is going to feel negative about, you are better off finding out sooner rather than later.  Getting client feedback on design elements and concepts early allows you to validate the concept you are pursuing and at the same time catch those “absolutely no way” items.

Tracing Requirements Through the Design Process

Using the various graphical and visual tools I have described is part of the underlying analysis required during pre-design.  They are used to help us understand the client’s requirements.  They are a means of ideation.  The tools aid us in creating the design concept that allows us to move on to the preliminary design.  In that process, they should provide evidence supporting our design decisions.

The data gathered and artifacts created during analysis should be used as a checklist and validation tool to review the preliminary and final designs.  Designs should be reviewed against any mind maps, bubble diagrams, functional diagrams, heat maps, client profiles, notes, drawings, etc.  In other words, review the designs against the client file.  Is the space adjacency correct?  Does the traffic flow setup as anticipated?  Are the space allocations what were required?  Do the colors and materials match the client’s preferences?  Will the design function in a variety of scenarios and circumstances?

This may seem at once obvious and logical.  Obvious in the sense that we check our work for completeness and accuracy.  Logical from the point that we go through a process of gathering data, analyzing it, synthesizing it, developing a design concept, and creating the design.  It only makes sense that all of the data supporting that process should lead to and support the design.

There are a couple of points to consider though.  Can you trace in the other direction; from design to your analysis and data?  Can you look at features and elements in the design and determine where the requirement for them came from?  Are there any elements of the design that are not supported by a specific requirement?  If so, why are they there?  Is it an unexpected bonus that was created serendipitously?

If we pass these tests, we should feel confident in our validation.  Other things can still thwart our efforts.  Clients can just not like a design.  Client circumstances can change and what was created one year and absolutely perfect can be non-functional the next.  Things happen.  Our intent should be to do the best possible job of validating that our design meets all client requirements and expectations.  The review process helps accomplish that goal.  It also provides one other ancillary benefit; it is the perfect review and prep for the client presentation.  If you have asked yourself every possible question about the design and why it is the way it is, there are few questions a client can throw at you that you will not be able to answer.

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.

Tools for Client Focused Designs

I am not sure when I first heard it, but I have believed in the adage “if you really know a topic, you can teach it to someone else” for a long time.  I apply that adage to understanding clients.  If I can really describe them and what they do and what they want to do, then I understand them.

In many other disciplines, there is a major focus on the user interface or user experience with the product or system.  In previous posts, I have drawn the analogy of creating an outdoor experience for clients.  I believe the user experience is a part of virtually any product or service we touch or use.  I put a lot of emphasis on the quality of the experience that a design can provide and how closely that experience matches the client’s expectations.

Designing user experiences begins with understanding the users.  Some of the tools that are used include personas and user stories.  These tools describe the users of the product or system.  They are not descriptions of usage.  Usage is what is being done.  Users are who is doing it.  I think this is an important distinction.  Getting money out of an ATM machine is a common usage activity or task.  The users who perform that activity vary greatly as do their motivations for doing it.  Designing how the process of getting cash from the ATM is accomplished requires thinking a great deal about that variety of users and motivations.  I think the same can be said for a landscape design.  Outdoor entertaining is a usage activity.  The clients may accomplish that activity in many different ways and may have a variety of motivations for doing so.  The entertaining space for a couple entering retirement will most likely be very different from the space for a young couple with small children.  Again, I think that client understanding is crucial.

The tools I mentioned previously, personas and user stories, tend to be used when there is a generic user who can be identified via demographics or surveys.  These user descriptions identify who would be using an ATM machine or an MP3 player or who might be searching for a flat screen TV on a web site.  This obviously means multiple personas or user stories.  We generally do not have that type of requirement in a landscape design project.

The first thing I do after completing the client analysis is to prepare a graphic client profile that will help me keep the client in mind while I am going through the design process.  I could use a simple list but I prefer a more graphic format for two reasons.  First, the information stands out and is very visible.  Second, and more important, a graphical format allows me to depict relationships between elements of the description.  A text listing is hierarchical.  The graphic format allows me the flexibility of depicting the importance and interrelationship of each element in the summary of the client.

Compiling a client profile isn’t always easy for a number of reasons.  First, you have to make sure you have all of the information and data you can obtain from the client.  Second, there are frequent situations where a couple have different tastes, preferences, ideas, and expectations.  When this happens, you can often end up with two clients.  A third situation is the commercial job where the client may be several individuals or a committee.  Again, there is often differing opinions as to what should be done.  The situation that comes most closely to a generic user is the common space.  This may occur in an apartment, condominium complex, assisted living center, or similar shared space environment.  In this situation, I may make sense to create personas to identify typical users of the space.

In disciplines where they user personas and user stories a lot, a frequently used techniques is for someone on the design team to play the role of the user in design review meetings.  I find this a useful technique to apply informally.  As I am putting together design ideas, I look back on my client profile and evaluate what I am proposing from their perspective.  It is not as independent as having someone role play the part but it does offer a chance to step back and make sure that the ideas align with the client.

I find that having a client profile in front of you, which is highly visible and focuses on key elements, is an extremely useful tool for developing more client-focused designs.