Working with the Utilization Matrix – Part 2

In part one of this series I discussed getting the client to identify usage ranges; upper and lower limits of how many people might be involved in various uses of the space.  As a way to validate that data, I pointed out that you could count the X’s across and down.  Counting across gives a tally for each use.  Counting down gives a tally for each user or group of users.  Those two sets of data gave us a starting point for considering the potential consolidation of spaces to serve multiple needs.  The diagram below is the result of where we are at this point.

Utilization Matrix with Limits, Counts, and Consolidation Ideas

I mentioned prioritization and space requirements as two likely next steps.  Let’s look at space requirements first.  We have an upper and lower range for number of people for each function.  Using twenty-five square feet per person and a guide, we can calculate the average space requirement per use.  The graphic below shows our utilization matrix updated with the average square footage required by use.

Utilization Matrix with Average Space Requirements

There are a couple of things to keep in mind.  First, the active play area may not work well using a twenty-five square foot rule of thumb and an average usage.  We probably should find out what “active play” means and how much space the client thinks is appropriate rather than apply a formula (I am going to assume at this point the client wants at 20 by 40 square foot area for children’s play area).  Second, averages don’t always work well.  This is especially true in the smaller areas.  The uses at the bottom of the list happen to be the uses that have the highest frequency; one, two, or three times per week.  We should probably use the upper limit for as a guideline for those spaces since they occur often and there are quite a few of them.  Making some adjustments, we have a new Space Needed column with adjusted square footages:

Utilization Matrix with Adjusted Space Requirements

This creates an interesting new way to layer the usage as shown below:

Utilization Matrix with Space Requirements Sorted and Grouped

Allocating a specific amount of space to active play and using the upper limit of users for space requirements increases the space requirements per use but there is one important factor to keep in mind.  These spaces can serve more than one purpose in most cases.  Just because an area is set aside for sunning does not mean it cannot be used for space during a summer party with the neighbors.  The spaces overlap both in purpose and in reality as shown in the graphic below:

Overlapping Space Utilization

The question is if the active play area will be separate or will it overlap and serve as some of the overflow area for large groups:

Overlapping Space Utilization with Play Area Alternatives

We need at least 750 square feet for the combined group areas and 800 square feet for the active play area.  If the clients have that much space available, there really isn’t a need to prioritize from a space standpoint.  However, if space is limited, the client will need to prioritize and make decisions about how important that play space is and can it serve a dual purpose.  The point is, the utilization matrix gives us an analysis framework, but we still need to work through specifics with the client.  Those specifics include priorities and granular detail about the uses and users of the space.  It may be that the client’s definition of a large group includes many children.  In a large group event, those children would use the active play area, which would reduce the demand for the remaining necessary large group space.  Those are the details you have to get from the client, understand, and work into your space utilization analysis.

Keep in mind that there may be other reasons to prioritize.  Budget may be one of them.  That being the case, you could go through the same exercise and add a column for budgeted cost per use.  Any other criteria can be used to sort, group, or expand the utilization matrix.  There may be other criteria you want to consider.  Some examples include: distance from the residence, exposure to sun, need for privacy, noise, etc.  The graphic below shows the utilization matrix updated for usage by time of day:

Utilization Matrix Expanded for Time of Day Usage

This expanded matrix above may gives us ideas about requirements for lighting.  In may also provide insight into space positioning to either take advantage of the sun during the day or shade during the afternoon and early evening.  Any particular variation of the matrix expanded for some particular type of data may give you insight into an issue or factor you need to consider in your design.  Looking at a variety of issues may indicate conflicts that require the client to again prioritize what is most important to them.  For example, creating sunning area may use space that is significant for other uses that require shade.  The client has to decide how important that sunning area is versus forgoing comfort is other usage situations.

As you may have gathered, this utilization matrix was created in Microsoft Excel.  Once the basic matrix is complete, it is a simple matter to copy the worksheet tab to create a new or modified version of the original.  You can reuse your original matrix as many times as necessary to analyze all of the factors you think are important or crucial for the project.

The utilization matrix raises questions.  That is a good thing because it gives you the opportunity to get clarification from your client.  It also gives you information about relationships between how the space will be used and who is using within different contexts.  It may provide insight into how space adjacency should be applied.  There may also be insights into specific issues such as where you need to consider lighting, screening, and other design elements.

As with many other tools I have mentioned, a utilization matrix really only makes sense on projects of a certain scale.  However, once you hit that point, it can be extremely useful is sorting out how the client wants to use the space versus what you need to design to meet that need.  Once you have the basic structure of uses and usage it is easy to expand the matrix to evaluate other issues.

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.

The Case for Electronic Ideation

This is a third follow-up to a post in January about gathering client and site data [Gathering Data: Challenges, Irony, and Value].  The questions raised in that post were:

• how much information do you need to collect?
• how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable?
• how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material?
• how do you reduce the data to its essential components?

In February, I did a follow-up to the first question in my post: The Case for Gathering More Information.  Several days ago, I did the second follow-up post:  The Case for Recording Client and Site Data Electronically.  This post will deal with the third and fourth questions:  how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material, and how do you reduce the data to its essential components?

This is a hard issue because there are numerous approaches that you could take to start the organization and ideation process.  One of the most basic is to start laying pictures, drawings, etc. out on a large table or posting them on a wall or board.  This is essentially a mind mapping or brainstorming approach.  Seeing all the pieces at one time together can stimulate your thinking and help you make connections.  It may help identify conflicts or interrelated issues.  The value of information or data is usually in the connection to other pieces of information and data.  Knowing a whole bunch of things doesn’t help unless to put them all together and make sense of them.

I tend to find the paper-based methods slow.  If I lay out drawings, plans, pictures, and other visual data I usually want to supplement it with some of my notes and thoughts.  This means writing out things on Post-it notes or note cards and positioning them in the mix of other things.  Having the paper laid out or posted on a wall makes it visible and it is easy to move things around or replace things.  However, the one thing I really find the most limiting is that it is not portable.  I have to be in front of it to see it, work with it, and analyze it.

My preference is to create my project brainstorming or ideation board electronically.  I have used different software tools to do this.  PowerPoint has some advantages as does Photoshop.  You can even use DynaSCAPE albeit with some constraints.  There are probably other software tools to do the same types of things.

I will use PowerPoint as an example since it is more familiar to more people.  The basic process is to create a new PowerPoint file with a single slide.  If you think you want to print it out later on a large format printer then format the slide size to 24×36 or some other large size.  Then simply start inserting your electronically stored content.

Maybe the base plan goes into the center.  Place digital photos around the edges representing their orientation toward the plan.  Everything will need to be sized.  However, just get the elements into rough position.  The nice thing about electronic format is that you can size up and down and drag things into a different position.  If you want to add comments or thoughts from your notes, simply copy them from your electronic notes and paste them into text boxes in PowerPoint.  You can then move them around, size them, and even color-code them.  If there are pictures of ideas or elements that you want to consider, copy and paste them into the slide.  Size and position them where they belong.  If something is important, increase the size, make the font bold, or color the background so it stands out.

I tend to use the outside edges and corners for other things such as the client profile or color swatches.  If the clients give me pictures or clippings of things they like I can sample colors and build a color palette to work from.  I usually put the client profile in a corner so I keep it visible.  Other random ideas may come up and again I place those on the edges so I don’t forget them.  If I see where they fit in later, I simply drag them into position.

Just like using a wall or tabletop, you may run out of room or have to reduce the size of some content just to fit it in.  You can use the drawing tools to make lines, arrows, or other symbols to help you focus on elements.  This isn’t really any different than creating a mood board, concept board, story board, or any other display board.  The only real difference is that it is for your ideation purposes.

Two of the main advantages of the electronic project board are that you can easily update it with new ideas, pictures, or any other content and it is portable.  If I have it on my laptop I can take it with me and work on it whenever I have time.  If I get an idea for some portion of the design, I can simply pull up the file and make the addition.

Where I find real value in the electronic approach is in two techniques; versioning and focusing.  Versioning is essentially an approach where you create an initial project board electronically and then copy it to start modifying it.  Maybe you have a couple of ideas of now you might approach the design.  Make copies of the original project board and modify each copy for a particular design approach.  Each is a version of the original board but with a different design concept.  You can use these to make decisions or bounce ideas off your clients.

Focusing is a variation where you make a copy of the project board but eliminate everything not related to a specific area.  If you are focusing on the entertaining area, eliminate everything else and build on that project board as a separate piece.  You can repeat this for other specific areas.  This also allows you to scale things up since you are dealing with a smaller area.  When you are done you can copy in each of the separate pieces to the overall project board to see how they fit and work together.

The project board is really a tool for you but you can use it to bounce ideas off the client.  This is a form of versioning.  If I want to use my material for a client discussion, I make a duplicate copy of it and then tweak it for client presentation.  I usually have to take it to a print shop to have a large-format copy printed, but this gives me a working document I can use with the client for discussions.

Lastly, material from you project board is a like many other things, a candidate for reuse.  As you move into the project, some of your content may be repurposed for other portions of your design work, analysis, or client presentation.  Working electronically to compile all of your data and information will save you time, leverage your work, and give you more flexibility to explore alternatives.

The Case for Recording Client and Site Data Electronically

This is a follow-up to a post in January about gathering client and site data [Gathering Data: Challenges, Irony, and Value].  The questions raised in that post were:

• how much information do you need to collect?
• how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable?
• how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material?
• how do you reduce the data to its essential components?

In February, I did a follow-up to the first question in my post:  The Case for Gathering More Information.  This post will deal with question “how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable.”

There are many sources of data.  What the client says, what you see at the site, how the client’s site currently appears, and other types of soft data.  There will be hard data such as plot maps, pictures, or even magazine clippings the client gives you.  You don’t always have control over how the information and data come to you.

What you do with the information to record it for your future use is within your control.  Information and data come in an original form.  You take notes during the client meeting.  You take pictures.  You make measurements.  The client may give you a plot map or magazine clippings of ideas.  These are all original documents.  My preference is to transfer those elements to electronic format.  There are several reasons for this.

Plot maps can be scanned and used for creating base plans.  Client notes can be typed up and become a record of you interactions with the client.  They are also searchable.  It is easier to find a specific comment or fact searching through electronic notes than it is going through sheets of hand written notes.  Magazine clippings can be scanned.  Those scanned pictures can be sampled for specific colors.  Digital pictures can be cataloged and tagged to make them easy to find.  They also be come a record of the “before state” of the client’s site.

Secondary research that you conduct can also be recorded electronically.  If you research information about the client’s neighborhood or some historical data about the surrounding area, any information you gather can be stored in electronic files.  This becomes reusable and searchable.  If you collect material samples those items can be scanned or photographed to pick up specific color palettes.  If you take the client on a field trip, take the digital camera.  Take pictures of the outdoor furniture or water features that they prefer.  Any of those information artifacts can be reused later in the design process.

The most important reason for transferring the information and data you gather into electronic format is to make it easier to deal with the third issue, how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material?  Electronic information can be chunked into useful pieces for specific purposes.  It can be reused or repurposed.  It can be manipulated and converted.  I will deal with that question and many of the things you can do with electronic data in my next post.

Leverage Your Validation Work in the Client Presentation

A substantial part of the validation process is developing evidence to support our design decisions and corroborate how those decisions evolved into a landscape design that meets the client’s needs.  During the actual design presentation, you have the opportunity to present and discuss your solution.  You are focusing on the results of your design process, the design itself.  However, many of the artifacts that you create during data gathering, analysis, synthesis, ideation, and the entire pre-design process can help you make that presentation and support your reasons for making the decisions you did.  Showing the design elements, supported by the rational behind them in the form of your pre-design artifacts makes your presentation stronger.

A second factor is that regardless of now impressive your final drawings, plans, renderings, etc. are they only represent a small portion of the work you actually did.  Showing artifacts from your pre-design work establishes not only that there was more work behind the scenes, but that you carefully considered a myriad of issues in the process of developing the design.

Lastly, the evidence you develop in the form of various artifacts from your analysis are highly reusable.  When the client calls back for more work, you have the information stored electronically so it can be updated and reused.  Other clients will require similar analytical work and what you did for one client can be revised and reused for another.  This leverages your time and your digital assets.

Design is a process that creates a result; the design itself.  The design, when implemented creates an experience for the client.  The point of validation is to make sure that the design is the right design to create the experiences the client wants.  Convincing the client that your design will do that requires a great design and a great presentation.  You should highlight all of your work.  The result is important but the pre-design work is where you spent the bulk of your time.  You should use what you did in pre-design to help convince the client that the design is right for them.  After all, you did the work and believe in your design.  That work convinced you that your design is right.  Leverage it and use it to convince the client.

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 Site

Analyzing the client site is a much more technical, analytical task than the client analysis.  You are dealing with the physical and tangible.  However, there are often one or more vague elements.  There aren’t any personalities or egos or agendas to deal with.  Site analysis is also much more scalable.  By that, I mean you can adjust what you do to the scope of the potential job.  You don’t need a geological survey for a small job or updating some planting beds.

The real issue comes down to those big jobs that have a huge impact on the property and the client is potentially investing a lot of money.  You also have to watch out for the medium size jobs that have unusual site circumstances.  Site analysis comes down to a drawing a line that will make you comfortable that you know enough about the site for the scope of work and that you can avoid overlooking anything major.  It is also extremely helpful to understand the site well enough to develop some creative ideas.

I really do not like checklists.  They tend to make us think that we have covered everything just because we have gone through them.  In this case, though, I have compiled a comprehensive list of things you might or might not do as part of a site analysis.  The list is broken up into three sections:  Natural features, Man-made features, and Contextual features.

• Natural features are those things related to the location and ground.  Even if the site was initially graded and landscape previously, the existing terrain, soil, plant materials, climate, etc. are all part of this section.
• Man-made features are the structures on the site and any infrastructure supporting the site.  This also includes the architectural style and related detail of the structure including ingress and egress.
• Contextual features are all of the surroundings of the site and now the site fits into those surroundings.

The list is as follows:

Natural features

• Terrain (rise / fall of land)
• Topography (record of terrain)
• Slopes (steepness measurements)
• Erosion (present / potential)
• Directions of surface drainage
• Areas of puddling / drought
• Geology
• Soil conditions / qualities
• Existing softscape
• Microclimates
• Climate (regional macro)
• USDA Plant Hardiness Zone
• Sun / shade angles
• Prevailing winds
• Annual rainfall / snowfall
• Depth of frost line
• Off-site view

Man-made features

• Existing buildings
• Utilities
• Paved areas
• Existing hardscape
• Existing landscape features
• Building architecture
• Building details (doors / windows)
• Lines of force
• Image / style
• Access
• Enclosure (screening)
• Current storage spaces
• Adjacent property development

Contextual features

• Property lines
• Setback
• Zoning regulations
• Deed restrictions
• Covenants
• Right-of-ways
• Easements
• Zero lot lines
• Off-site noise / odors / etc.
• Historical significance
• Regional / local style

Since the type of data we are gathering for the site analysis is less subjective than client data, it lends itself to being recordable in a graphic or visual format.  Most of the data can be graphed, drawn, sketched, plotted, or recorded in some type of visual format.  If we can record the data in a central place such as over a base plan, we have the ability to summarize and consolidate the various types of data we collect.  I have two ways of managing the data and making it easy to manipulate.

The first is to use DynaSCAPE and take advantage of its layers feature.  I import the base plan as a graphic and redraw the elements I need.  This becomes my base plan layer.  After that, I work from my notes and transfer different types of data over my base plan using a different DynaSCAPE layer for each.  For example, anything dealing with terrain, slope, or topography goes on one layer.  I may use another layer for microclimate data.  The number of layers and the way I group or merge data will depend on how much data I have and how finite I want to break it down.  When I am done, I can use DynaSCAPE to select various layers in combination to see how they impact or interact with each other.  For example, I might look at how the lines of force overlay the topography.  The base plan layer is always selected to give a reference point to the view.  However, mixing up and combining different layers of data allow you to see how site elements influences one another.

The second method is to use Microsoft PowerPoint.  I insert a graphic of the base plan onto an initial slide.  I then duplicate that slide for the number of times that I want to create separate overlays.  Then I follow the same process as above.  I use PowerPoint drawing tools to layout various site elements one slide at a time.  Mixing and matching gets a little more tricky with PowerPoint.  If I want to combine two elements, I will duplicate the slide for one of them and then add the overlay graphics for the second set of elements to the new slide.  Working this way with PowerPoint is doable and in some cases can be easier but you have to be a little more careful and manage your individual slides so you know what you have.

Both of these methods work.  They both can be tedious.  However, the real power of analysis is the ability to combine different kinds of data and information.  The results can be well worth the effort.  You may not always know which layers of data to combine.  It sometimes comes down to looking at the individual components and giving some serious thought to how that might affect one another.  You might have an area with drainage issues that you need to deal with but easements could constrain how you address those issues.  There may be opportunities to use the existing structures and lines of force to create a compelling space layout but the pattern of sun and shade in the space may preclude that solution.  You have to think about the information and go through the analysis.  That is really the point.

One other advantage to the DynaSCAPE method is that when I get to preliminary design I can pull some of my analysis layers to the preliminary design to see the impact.  For example, I may look at how prevailing wind or sun / shade angles to make sure they are fitting into my design correctly.

My last point is to not forget reusability.  Any graphic or visual you create for one client can be copied over the base plan for another client.  Don’t recreate the wheel.  Save your time for the in-depth analysis of your data.

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.

Landscape Design Validation Model – High-level Overview

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

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

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

Two Project Context Components -- Client and Client Site

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

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

Four Spheres of Process Activities

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

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

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

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

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

Key Validation Points

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.

Gathering Data: Challenges, Irony, and Value

Part of the problem of using a more analytical approach to design is what to do with all the information and data you obtain.  How do you capture it?  How do you organize it?  How do you make sense of it?  It is ironic that as we move through the design process from the start we want to capture more information as we go further into the process.  This is the collection, expansion, and elaboration of data and information about the client, site, neighborhood, city, etc.  However as we move toward the end of the design process we want to distill that information into the key elements necessary to make design decisions.  We need to cull the data and information into the most important elements that will help us develop our design concepts and make decisions about those concepts.  This is a reduction process.

Just stop and think about all the data you can gather.  You will have notes from client meetings.  You may make sketches.  You may mark and note a copy of the base plan.  You may take digital photos.  There may be information about local climate patterns available, historical information about the neighborhood, native plants to research, local or neighborhood zoning restrictions to gather, and so forth.  Taking the client on a field trip may generate a completely new set of notes not to mention the possibility of material samples, potential softscape materials, etc.

The first question is how much information do you need to collect.  Spending time gathering information costs you time.  Time you could spend doing design, working with other clients, marketing, etc.  In every job, you have to make a decision about how much information you need.  At what point do you have enough information to make the best possible design decisions?

The second question is how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable.  As noted above, there are going to be many sources of data and information.  They are likely to be recorded, captured, or available to you in a variety of formats.  What do you do with that collection of materials that will make it accessible, usable, and useful?

This leads to the third question, how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material.  What means do you use to capitalize on everything you have gathered?  What are the tools and techniques that you can use to see everything and see the implications of all the material?

Lastly, how do you reduce the data to its essential components?  What are the key elements?  How do you find those pieces in all of the material that combine to make the best design concepts?  What are the best approaches to focusing on the pieces you need to make design decisions that are right for the client and their space, and make it compelling and visually exciting?

I intend to explore these issues in more detail in upcoming posts.  Each of these issues is complex and has many possible ways of being handled.

Active / Proactive Design for Validation

My focus in this blog is the validation of landscape designs.  My intent is discover methods that will allow designers to make sure that designs will work for clients before any construction begins and in fact before the design is ever presented to the client.  As noted before, virtual reality, 3D graphic walkthroughs and time evaluation concepts are and continue to be a very interesting technique for achieving my goal.  However, given the current limitations of that technology and the other constraints, I have spent a lot of time looking at ways of attacking this problem through other means.

This blog was started six months ago on the premise of making sure that designs will work for our clients.  In reflecting over the sixty some posts so far, it struck me that what I am suggesting is to be more active and proactive in the design process.  I think I have been realistic in terms of making sure to point out where benefits can be realized.  I know many of the things I have suggested add to the time required to complete a project.  However, to balance this I have stressed reusability of work to speed the process and the benefits of highly satisfied clients.

The active / proactive design process starts with a focus on the client.  People first.  Design projects don’t exist without clients.  What do they really want?  What is it that they really need?  You also have to know what you have to work with.  Actively analyzing and understanding the client site provides the foundation for what can be created.  Validation fundamentally begins with these two steps.  Know the client and what they want.  Know what you have to work with.

Everything beyond this point is up to you.  What more can you do to create a design concept that will work for the client within their space.  What tools and techniques will you apply to the task to make sure you achieve that goal?  That is active / proactive design.  Again, this is the point where I am suggesting going the extra mile.  What additional information do you need?  What does the client need to see to move forward or make a decision?  The iterative design process I have suggested requires revisiting the client’s needs and site as needed throughout the design process.  Analysis of what you have may lead to new questions or a need to revisit the site for more evaluation.

Active design requires a higher degree of involvement, constant questioning, and analysis of all of the information gathered.  Design is all about function.  It also about the resulting experience the client obtains from their space.  Being active / proactive in the design process will produce the insights and information needed to create a design concept that is functional, completely meets the client’s needs, and provides an outdoor experience for the client.

Display Boards – Design Tools and Presentation Tools

Storyboards have been used for a long time as a presentation tool by landscape and other designers.  Variations have been created:  inspiration boards, idea boards, concept boards, mood boards, journey boards, etc.  Sometimes these are used as tools for the designer and other times as presentation tools.  They can also be used as a communication tool within design teams.

Any of these boards can be created physically with poster board or electronically using Photoshop, PowerPoint, or another graphic package.  You can also combine approaches, doing some portions or the structure electronically and mounting anything physical to poster board.  You can also scan physical objects such as material samples to use in electronic versions.

Which approach you use will most likely be determined by your purpose.  An inspiration board for example is usually built up over time.  Collecting samples over time may be more convenient electronically.  However having a physical board in front of you in your office is more likely to provide the intended inspiration.

If you collect pictures or samples for future use, you need a way to store, categorize, access, and retrieve items from your collection.  Electronic filing as graphics is the most efficient and effective.  There are numerous software and online tools for storing graphic images with categories and tags to help you retrieve them.  It depends a lot on what volume of material you have.

The various boards mentioned have two fundamental purposes:  1) creative inspiration and ideation during design and, 2) presentation of designs and design concepts.  As mentioned above they can be used as a communication device with larger design teams.

I tend to work electronically simply for ease of revision.  Anything I need to physically present can be printed on a large format printer.  I also tend not to keep many inspirational graphics stored electronically.  If it is something truly different, or so unusual that I can’t resist it, I store in within folders on my hard disk to make it easy to retrieve.  Since I keep few files on hand, I don’t have a complex filing system.  If I need graphic ideas for a board, I will usually do a search on Google images or Bing images to find something appropriate.

Another big reason for creating electronic boards is reusability.  Even if some small portion of a board can be reuse for another client, I have saved myself that much work.  Since each graphic component is individual, I can delete the ones I do not want to use and add new graphic components.  This also applies to using elements from one type of board to another.  Also, if you find a better image at the last minute, it is much easier to update it electronically.

As far as the various types of boards, the following is my take on the purpose and use of each type.

Inspiration boards are just that.  They are to inspire you.  They are a way of getting ideas going.  Compiling a visual collage of spaces, materials, accent pieces, views, etc. may inspire a new, fresh idea for you to use.  You can also use them to compare and evaluate competing inspirations.  For example, a clean modern in-ground pool versus the natural, built-in pool with surrounding rock and vegetation.  I consider inspiration boards to be a designer or design team tool.  They are not usually used for client presentations.

Idea boards and concept boards are very similar.  I think idea boards come first.  You use them to find your concept.  The idea is the beginning of the concept.  You build the idea and flush it out by adding elements to your idea board.  Some of the ideas may conflict.  Some may be off the wall.  However, like brainstorming when you get enough content and evaluate it long enough, the focus or concept you want to use and build on will jump out at you.

Concept boards are for building the creative and functional aspects of your design.  From your ideas, you have narrowed down a theme or some other element to build on.  You look for elements that will help you support it and bring it to life in the design.  One project I worked on was for an open space next to an apartment building.  The street names at the corner of the space were names of famous World War I battles in France.  The concept that I developed for the site was French countryside.  I created a concept board that expressed that theme and added various graphic elements that helped me select designs for signage, seating spaces, recreation areas, and so forth.  The concept board contained much more than what I actually used.  I was able to pick from the best components for my design and client presentation.  Concept boards can be used in client presentations.  However, I think that you should have already validated the concept with the client long before the final presentation.

Mood boards are useful for helping establish the ambiance and feeling you want to create.  These boards are not so much an expression of the design concept as the design feel and sensory experience.  What are the colors?  What are the textures?  How will they elicit an emotional response in the people who visit and use the space?  Mood boards tend to express adjectives.  They may express tranquil, exciting, relaxing, lush, or many other adjectives.  They support the concept by complementing and completing the setting.  Mood boards may also be part of the client presentation.  They help sell the concept so they can be an important tool is establishing, defining, and painting what the final result will be.

Journey boards are used to reflect movement through a space.  They show the sequence of events of walking a path or changing a view or moving from one space to another.  They can be a significant part of the client presentation because of their ability to depict movement and change.

Storyboards are the presentation tool.  This is not to say the other types of boards are not or cannot be used in a presentation.  They have just traditionally been used to capture little bits and pieces of each of the other types of boards for the final client presentation.  My decision to create one or use one depends a lot on the complexity and interrelationship of the various elements.  If there is a way to succinctly depict the concept, mood, and other keys elements, I might combine them into one storyboard.  However, if I need the power of the full presentation of mood and concept, I will use those two boards independent of a storyboard.

There are many subtleties to these different types of boards.  The electronic versus physical board creation process is subject to debate.  Presentation approaches such as combining concept and mood boards can have benefits.  The various types of boards are tools to help in the design process and to a large extent in the design validation process.  Learning to use boards in the way that is most beneficial for each project is the real skill.

Leveraging What We Do Best – Is That the Right Thing to Do?

One of the early lessons I learned in the consulting business was to leverage the products I created for one client and reuse them with other clients.  Let me give a quick example.  I created an Investor Relations data management system for a major corporation.  I captured their online data about who owned their stock and produced reports about who those major owners were and how the ownership was distributed  The system also monitored trading activity in their stock.  Other functions monitored news, graphed trends, produced alerts, and so forth.  Creating this system was not a huge undertaking.  However, when I was done, the model could be applied to other corporations.  All that really needed to be done was to change the access to capture one corporation’s data instead of another’s.  Hence the leverage.  My work could be reused from one corporation to the next with minimal change.  Assuming I charged the same rate for the second and subsequent customer, my profit increased since there is no real development time.

So what does this have to do with landscape design?  I think several things.  First, as designers do we try to replicate softscape and hardscape materials or design concepts from one client to the next for the same reasons; to leverage something we have already done?  Do we produce similar designs because we can leverage what we already know and understand?  Do we seek out clients with similar problems because we know how to deal with them quickly and efficiently?

It probably makes sense for a designer or design firm of a certain size to pre-screen clients to make sure they are the right fit for what they do.  A firm the does design, build, and maintenance probably doesn’t want to deal with someone who want a few plants replaced.  A designer will probably fend off a call from a homeowner looking for a spring cleanup.  All businesses have target customers or clients.  As landscape designers we should have a target market also.  When a potential client doesn’t fit that profile they should be referred on to another firm or politely told that their need isn’t what we do.

The point is, that given a target market, leveraging what we have done in the past is good.  You can work from your strengths.  However, you cannot take the one size fits all approach.  Our strengths can be our reputation.  We can be the best designer of outdoor kitchens in the city.  We can leverage our expertise but treat each client as a unique situation.  We can help clients create the perfect outdoor kitchen for their needs.  We cannot, however, just take on clients, and prescribe an outdoor kitchen just because that is what we do best.

Back to my consulting story.  I resold the Investor Relations management system many times.  As new clients acquired it, I got suggestions for new features and improvements.  As those were incorporated, I went back to old clients to offer them the enhancements.  I was learning as I was going and offering my customers the benefit of that new knowledge.  However, as other clients approached me with different needs such as systems for tracking water-quality tests or calculating bulk materials handling requirements I did not turn those clients away.  I learned new business requirements and created solutions for those problems.

As a landscape designer you can do the same thing.  Your strength may be water features or swimming pools or old English gardens but when there is a need for a rock garden or something that is outside of your normal approach you can use that as a learning tool and build your portfolio of skills and experience.  When the opportunity arises for you to create a design that is within your area of expertise, you can still learn and improve upon what you do.  When the project is over you take that enhanced knowledge and experience on to new clients.  Each client has to be treated as unique.  That uniqueness will present opportunities for us to either leverage our strengths and build new skills and expertise.  That is how we grow as professional and expand our reputation.

Visual Tools for Discussing Space Needs and Utilization

One of the dilemmas that a designer faces is ascertaining how much usable space a client needs and then converting that into a practical method of soliciting a decision from the client.  It is helpful if the client has some idea of the range of occupancy that they typically have over the course of time.  It might be two to four people on the deck or patio the majority of the time.  However, if you consider occasional parties or large family events, you have to plan for accommodating those large groups.

One project I worked on was for a couple who provided this breakdown of their usage:

Description	Number of occupants	Percent of Usage	Required Usable Square Footage
Couple only	2	80%	50
Couple plus neighboring couple	4	10%	100
Neighborhood gathering	12	5%	300
Family event	5%	25	625

This is obviously a very broad range of usage.  The clients need to make a decision about how much space they are willing to live with and pay for.  I have found that tables of numbers really do not work.  I have tried adding columns showing the percentage change in size from one increment to the next.  I have added cost columns to show incremental costs.  Clients just cannot visualize how the size difference will affect them.  What makes it worse is that we are talking about usable space.  The client needs to allocate room for the table and chairs, conversation area, grill, pots, décor, and any other amenities they want to add.  Granted some of the space such as tables and chairs is accommodation space but it fixed space that is not flexible for rare large group events.

The technique I have had the most success with is using a series of canned plan views that I created in DynaSCAPE.  I used these to create visual space and occupancy diagrams.  These drawings are in different size and layouts.  They each contain some amenities such as tables, chairs, grills, conversation areas, etc.  I pick one that is closest to what I need to demonstrate for the client and then modify it as necessary.  If my canned plan does not have a spa and the client wants one, I can quickly update my DynaSCAPE drawing and use it for my demonstration of space utilization and occupancy.  A sample plan is shown below:

Canned Plan for Visual Presentation

The plan above is useful for demonstrations for several reasons.  It is six hundred square feet in total.  Each square is ten by ten or one hundred square feet.  That readily translates into space for four occupants using a standard of twenty-five square feet per person.  In this example, the table area will accommodate six.  The fire pit seating area in the upper left will accommodate at least four.  Two occupants could use the lounge chairs.  The rest of the space is open with the exception that the grill area could be limited if it is in use.  This plan is roughly three hundred square feet of open space and three hundred square feet of used space.

After prepping my canned plan, I export it from DynaSCAPE to a jpeg file to be imported into PowerPoint.  All of my canned plans are the same scale so I have some previous PowerPoint files that already have the appropriate symbols on them to show space and occupancy allocation.

In PowerPoint, I add colored circles and other rounded shapes to mark out occupancy.  Single circles represent twenty-five square foot space allocations for an occupant.  The canned plan above after updating is shown below:

Visual Space Utilization Presentation

With this graphic, it is easy to talk through the possible usage issues with the client.  You can visually see the impact of how guests will occupy the space and utilize the available area.

This technique is extremely quick.  DynaSCAPE allows you to quickly modify your canned plan for any special features.  Using PowerPoint for the color overlays permits you to reuse previous files you have created and quickly make modifications.

I find this type of visual presentation tool much more effective than the table of numbers.  It is much easier to get the client to discuss possible modifications or space increases because they can readily see the impact on their outdoor space.

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.

Reusability and Consistency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Validation – the Impact on Proposals and Pricing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expanding Project Scope the Right Way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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