Prototypes in Landscape Design – Final Thoughts

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

Getting client requirements is crucial.  Having a design methodology with an approach to gathering requirements is extremely important but probably more important is having a toolkit of methods and approaches you can apply in different circumstances.  One size does not fit all in design methodologies.  The major thing to keep in mind is that you must gather all client requirements, gather them completely, and gather them accurately.  Finding the mix of tools and approaches that will allow you to accomplish this comes with experience and practice.

I would not tell a client I am going to prototype their design or some portion of their design.  However, I would use a prototyping approach if it was appropriate and it would allow me to draw out and/or confirm some of the client’s needs.  If I was doing a physical representation with stakes, cord, boxes, and other materials, I might describe it as a walkthrough or simulation.  The approach is the same; I just am not bogged down in the use of the term prototype.

As I said in an earlier post, almost everything we create to represent the client’s design is a prototype.  These artifacts just have different levels of visual and functional fidelity.  A simple plan view is a prototype.  If I can use that plan view to validate the client’s requirements there is no reason to go further.  However, if the client continues to waver or expresses concerns, I may have to dig into my toolbox and apply a creative approach to representing the design that will communicate the design intent and how it meets the client’s needs.

Some prototyping can be done with either 2D or 3D design software.  Other prototypes may be visually enhanced photos.  Physical models take time and talent but, if you know what you are doing and are good at it, giving the client a scale model can be impressive.  Simulating areas and/or spaces with objects, lines, and other materials is a good way to give the client a sense of space and proportion.  The point is you need to determine what you need to convey, how much fidelity you need, and the best way to convey it.

Having the right tools and knowing which tool to use is important.  In addition to DynaSCAPE, VizTerra, DesignWare, and other landscape design packages I use other tools to augment my design analysis and presentations.  Software such as PowerPoint, Excel, Work, Visio, Photoshop and others allow me to produce analytic materials and client presentation materials.  They can play a role in prototyping if they allow you to create a representation you can use to convey what you need.  I typically use the tool that will work best for what I need to accomplish whether it be analysis, design, or creating a prototype.  However, I always keep in mind how I might be able to leverage that material later in the project.

Making the choice to use physical representations with rope, cord, hose, stakes, boxes, etc. is a little more difficult.  Deciding when to use physical representation is primarily a matter of experience and ability to read what the client needs.  There are clients who just cannot visualize anything.  Even with a plan view, enhanced digital photos, drawings/sketches, and other representations, they just cannot sense or visualize how it will work, how much space will be available, etc.  In some cases, you might decide to use a physical representation in order to convince the client that their ideas will not work or you want to show them an alternative approach.  Whatever the motivation for a physical representation, you need to decide how much effort to put into it to create the level of functional or visual fidelity to meet your needs.

Prototypes do work.  The key is to use the right tool or technique at the right time for the project.

Applying Prototyping in Landscape Design

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

In my first post on this topic, I mentioned that I have been a big proponent of prototypes for many years.  However, this was in the context of information systems.  I did not see an immediate fit for prototypes within landscape design.  In thinking about prototyping from the standpoint of how they are used and their varying levels of fidelity, I think the prototyping approach is actually used within the landscape design field.  It just may not be used consciously.  Let’s look at some examples.

First, assume you get a call from a homeowner who wants a consultation on what is feasible in their backyard.  They have limited space.  They would really like a pool but they need a deck or patio for entertaining.  They just don’t see how it could work.  Assume you meet with the client, make some measurements, and evaluate the space.  Since this is a simple consultation, you grab your note pad and sketch out a rough diagram of the space.  You use bubble diagrams to show how the functional areas, the pool and the entertaining space, could fit into their yard.  That hand sketch is a prototype.  You are using it as a proof of concept.  It has zero functional fidelity and very low visual fidelity but if it convinces the client, it did the job.

In our second example, you are designing a front yard walkway.  The clients want to enhance the curb appeal of their home.  Their current entry way is obscured and offers visitors no clue of how to get to the front door.  You take measurements, get the budget, and get other information from the client.  You create a colorize plan view showing the new front yard bedding and walkway with all new hardscape and plantings.  That plan view is also a prototype.  It has high visual fidelity in that it is colorized and shows the flow of the walkway and how it is visible from the street.  It has some functional fidelity in that it shows how it functions by opening up the view from the street.  However, it is not high fidelity because the clients have to translate from a 2D drawing to how it will look when it is actually done.

In this last example, you have already sold a design.  You are creating an outdoor entertaining area with a large fireplace at the end of the patio.  During the design phase there was a lot of discussion about size and cost tradeoffs and the client made their decisions about how much space they were willing to pay for.  Construction has begun.  The patio area is dug out.  The concrete will be poured in a couple of days.  After that, the construction of the fireplace area will begin which includes side benches for seating.  The client calls in a panic and says they just do not see how it will fit.  They are very concerned about how the fireplace and seating will fit and that there may not be enough space.  Realizing the problem is one of visualization you go to a store and get several cardboard boxes.  You go to the client’s home to meet with them.  You grab the cardboard boxes and set them up, one on top of another, to represent the fireplace and side benches.  You move the client’s outdoor table into a position to represent how it might be set up after construction.  The client can then see a physical object where their fireplace and seating are going to be located and how a table and chairs fit into it.  This leads to some discussion and playing around with the space.  The client decides they really want more space.  They are willing to reduce some of the other yard areas to get it.  They can afford the change and ask you to have the contractor push the fireplace back two feet.  They realize it is their decision and are willing to pay the additional cost and suffer the delay.  Those cardboard boxes were a prototype.  It had very low visual fidelity but moderate functional fidelity from the standpoint that the represented the scale of the objects.

Each of these examples shows how a different representation was used as a prototype.  The first two, the quick sketch of a bubble diagram and the colorized plan view are very common in landscape design.  Using cardboard boxes to represent hardscape is less traditional.  In each case, the degree of visual and functional fidelity varied but was adequate to achieve the objective.

In the first case, you could have taken the client’s information and gone back to the office to create a plan view drawing to show how there was adequate space for the client to achieve their objectives.  There may be cases where you have to do this to convince the client.  Some client’s want more detail or want more precise drawings.  You have to judge the client and determine what will work for the client and your objective.

In the second example, there are other approaches that could have been taken.  You probably would make the plan view drawing anyway.  Colorizing it was an enhancement that may or may not have been necessary.  The plan view would show how the space was opened up and how the new walkway was more clearly defined.  Colorizing just adds to the visual fidelity in that it shows space relationships between hardscape and softscape more clearly.  It may also show the client how you are working in their preferred color scheme.  There may be cases where the client just cannot make the 2D to 3D translation and creating a 3D walkthrough may be necessary.  This is again something you have to determine for each client and project.

In the last example, objects were used to represent hardscape objects within the design.  You may be need to get creative when you to try to physically model something.  Sheets, plastic sheeting, or large sheets of brown wrapping paper can be used to represent walls or fences.  They can also be laid out to represent walkways.  A trash can may be used to represent a water feature.  Hose or cord can be laid out to represent bedding edges.  There are endless possibilities.  You just have to determine which design elements you need to represent and then what you can use to represent them.

All of these examples of prototyping also demonstrate how prototyping can be applied at different stages of a project.  In the first example, it was used as a proof of concept.  The second example showed how it was used to convey the design result.  The third example showed how prototyping can clarify issues and/or determine if changes are needed during construction.

None of the examples dealt with prototyping as a means of facilitating requirements gathering.  This is probably one of the most useful applications of prototyping.  Being able to show clients a prototype representation of some portion of their design may help the client clarify what they want and allow the designer to explore ideas that the client has not expressly stated.  What you prototype and how you prototype really depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Prototyping can answer questions.

Bringing in stakes and cord to mark off different functional areas can help the client understand how their new space will be proportioned and how it will flow.  If there are questions about how confining a fence or wall will be, one approach might be to hang clear plastic sheeting in one area and a more solid material in another to give the client a sense of how different materials can provide varying degrees of transparency.  That same question might apply to the fence itself.  Placing some plant materials in front of a sheet to represent how the fence is obscured may convince the client that the fence will be a good functional element but it can be made visually attractive though the addition of plant materials.

There are many, many opportunities to use a prototyping approach in landscape design.  I realize I am using a very loose definition of prototyping.  In other design disciplines, prototyping is more of a way of approaching a problem.  It is not necessarily any one tool or set of tools.

In landscape design, prototyping can be both an approach and a tool.  I have frequently recommended that client contact and feedback be a priority throughout the project.  This provides opportunity to show the client small prototype components of the design.  Getting client concurrence early in the project and often, helps prevent costly redesigns.  As the project moves along, designers should keep prototyping in mind as a useful tool to help clarify issues or develop understanding of the design intent.  More importantly though, the prototyping approach can provide validation of both overall design concepts and specific design elements.

How and When to Use a Prototype

Prototyping is a technique used in design, in many different disciplines.  The term is seldom used in the context of landscape design.  In other design disciplines, prototyping can be used to:

• Show a proof of concept
• Gather requirements
• Validate requirements
• Explore solutions or resolve specific design issues

Within any design discipline there may be several methods or approaches to prototyping.  The objective is usually the same; create a representation of the design objective to show how it will work and/or look.  The prototype may be a car, a retail product, an information system, an airplane, or a web site.  As I mentioned in my last post, prototypes, as a representation, have a fidelity or degree of realism.  Low fidelity prototypes are less realistic.  High fidelity prototypes often appear to be completed projects.

Fidelity is most commonly evaluated on two levels.  Visual fidelity or how realistic does it look, and functional fidelity or how realistic does it perform.  These two criteria are not mutually exclusive.  A prototype can have both high visual and high function fidelity.

How and why these two criteria matter is important.  As a rule, higher fidelity means more time to develop the prototype, which essentially means more cost.  Depending upon your objective you may be better off creating a lower fidelity prototype, quicker, at less cost.  In other cases, a high fidelity prototype may be needed.  A good designer will use the right fidelity prototype to accomplish the specific objective.

Prototypes can be applied at just about any point in the design process.  You can use them before the project is even a project as a proof of concept (i.e., there is room to build both a pool and a deck).  You can use them during the requirements gathering stage.  They can be valuable during design development.  A prototype makes a great sales aid during a client presentation.  Lastly, a prototype can even be valuable during the build or construction phase.

The question is, how does it apply to landscape design?  My next post will answer that question.

Prototyping – Does it Work in Landscape Design?

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

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

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

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

When is Extra Design Effort Required?

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

Finding or creating the perfect focal point for a backyard may be a significant element in your design.  Without that focal point, the design may not be as aesthetically pleasing or may look incomplete.  That focal point probably isn’t critical though.  In most cases, it can be replaced with something else assuming it isn’t hardscape.

The elements that are costly, complex, and /or critical require us to take extra effort to design them right and present them right.  Showing the client your design that includes how the view of the lake or mountains is incorporated helps you sell the design.  It also supplies you with the validation that you have met that client requirement.  Walking the client through a design that shows and demonstrates how the walkway, patio, or deck functions and meets their needs is also a validation technique.  If the walkthrough convinces the client, you have validated that part of the design.  It also solicits the client’s buy-in that the design will work.

When something is complex/costly (hardscape) and/or critical (high priority) then a prototype, model, 3D walkthrough, or some other type of detailed rendering should be used.  This correctly implies that extra design effort is necessary to address the complexity /costliness and/or critical nature of the element.  It also supplies a validation technique to help assure that your design addresses the client’s needs completely and correctly.  The graphic below represents the boundary between critical and costly/complex that you need to monitor.  Anything to the upper right of the curve is a candidate for extra design analysis and conceptual development as well as presentation.

Boundary between Complex / Costly and Critical where extra design effort is needed

The premise of this blog is to advocate making sure that a design will work for a client before construction begins.  In short, avoiding design mistakes.  Dealing with elements that are complex or costly such as hardscape, or elements that are crucial such as preserving a view demand extra attention and effort to validate that they really are right for the client and the site.

A Prototype Landscape Design?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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