How Many Designs Do You Create for a Client?

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

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

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

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

Looking at the Fourth D

Several times, while discussing 3D design technology, I have mentioned the capability to show changes over time. For example, how plants will mature and grow or the simple change from daylight to nighttime. These are really fourth dimension changes; changes over time. Being able to look at a design in different circumstances adds tremendously to your ability to present a complete portrayal of the space to the client. Long-term changes in plants due to growth and maturity will alter the overhead space, views, backdrops, and other visual elements. Changes during the course of a day will alter shade patterns and the impact of accent and mood lighting. Seasonal changes also alter the look and feel of the space. These are all obvious changes due to natural time ordered events and cycles. This is classic “time is the fourth dimension” stuff.

I think another component of that fourth dimension, and the on that is not really well addressed in 3D design software, is the impact of different types of space utilization. How the space looks when it being used for a quiet evening at home, a family barbecue, or a large party are unique. The space will have a different utilization pattern in different scenarios that will give it a unique feel and appearance. Being able to get a sense of how the space will look and feel in these cases is just as important as the time ordered events or cycles. The fourth dimension is time but it is also utilization.

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 Analysis / Synthesis Key Validation Point

The second key validation point is at the end of Analysis Synthesis.  Like the first key validation point at the end of Data Gathering, this is a threshold point to help you decide if you have completely and thoroughly analyzed the data you have gathered and used it to focus your design development.  The overlap with the Creative Development phase is again built in to allow you the opportunity to explore some design options and if necessary return for further analysis.

Key Validation Points

In the Analysis / Synthesis phase you are going to be massaging the data you gathered to start making design decisions.  Which tools and techniques you apply will vary from project to project.  Your objective is to take the raw data you have gathered and apply various analytical techniques to synthesize that data to start making design decisions.  Those decisions will relate to form, space allocation, space relationships, and other layout issues.  Client needs will be prioritized.  Cost tradeoffs may need to be made.  Analysis will produce information that helps you refine design decisions.  Each method, tool, or technique you use may generate information that suggests the need for revising the decisions you have already made.  This is the synthesis process; weaving and blending analytical results with the data you have gathered to develop the best overall design decisions.

I will be going into more detail about specific methods for this phase in upcoming posts.  The validation issues and questions at the end of this phase are related to making sure that you have addressed the all the data you gathered and used it to make justifiable design decisions.  The analytical methods you use should provide ample evidence that your decisions to allocate space in a particular manner or relate one or more spaces in a specific way are justified.  They should justify any prioritization or tradeoffs you made.  You should be able to point to specific issues that were raised in Data Gathering and see how they were resolved in Analysis / Synthesis.  Likewise, you should be able to trace your analysis of opportunities and see how they were evaluated and addressed.  You may also find that Analysis / Synthesis raised questions that required you to go back to Data Gathering.  That is a natural part of validation.

As I stated earlier, I will address specific methods, tools, and techniques.  However, two particular tools deserve mention.  First, during Analysis / Synthesis you should document you site analysis.  Formally, summarizing all of your results is useful for a couple of reasons.  First, it gives you a chance to review everything and make sure nothing was overlooked.  Second, formally summarizing it into a presentable document can add value to your services if you present the results to the client when the project is complete.  Not only do they have a record of the state of the site as you found it, they also can receive your recommendations for things that can be done in the future.  Lastly, the documented site analysis can serve as a validation tool by checking the results of your design against it to make sure you have addressed all of the issues and opportunities.

The second tool is the client profile.  I have mentioned in other posts that having a high-level graphic profile of your client in front of you can be valuable while working on the project.  It helps you keep the client in the forefront of your mind while developing the design.  A major part of that profile should be the client’s usage scenarios; the activities they plan for their space.  Including these also keeps these in the forefront of your design.

The result of Analysis / Synthesis should be your design program.  The design program should specify exactly what you intend to do for the client.  This is more than a list of bullet points or an outline.  It should include a description of what the outcome will be and how it will be achieved.  What will be changed, created, removed, remodeled, etc. to create the design.  It should paint a picture of the future state but in the process describe how that change will occur.  Your final validation should be to trace through your design program to make sure that the client’s needs are addressed and that all of the site issues and opportunities are addressed.

The last key validation point is Creative Development.  I will address that in my next post.

Stressing Function Again

My January 15^th post, A Priority on Function, stressing the importance of designing for function first.  I just found the following quote from Steve Jobs from the 2003 New York Times article “The Guts of a New Machine.”

“Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like.  People think it’s this veneer – that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’  That’s not what we think design is.  It’s not just what it looks like and feels like.  Design is how it works.”

I find this a very compelling expressing of my passion which is to make sure that our designs will work for the client before they are built.

A Priority on Function

There are obviously many aspects to consider when gathering client requirements.  I sometimes think that there is too much emphasis on gathering client preferences as to aesthetics and not enough effort on understanding the client’s functional requirements.  I think design is essentially all about function.  The purpose of the space should direct and focus the design concept.  This is not to say that we should ignore aesthetic elements or not take advantage of a great view.  Those things just have fit and work with the functional design.

If you ask a client what their issues are that may say things like not enough space, lack of privacy, too much sun or shade, poor layout, and so forth.  Most of the time it is easy to get clients to talk about what they like and don’t like.  The usually have preferences for colors, materials, style, etc.  However, when you ask clients how they intend to use the space the answers may not flow quite so easily or they may be too vague for our purposes.  To really understand what a client needs you have to understand what they intend to do.  You should also consider how that might change over time.  Let’s look at some examples.

When a client says they want to use the space for entertaining you need detail about what that entails.  How often?  Formal or informal?  How many guests?  What time of day?  You need to get the client thinking about what their needs are as precisely as possible and covering all of their possible scenarios.  That family reunion that is coming up in a few years is not an immediate concern but it is something that could be addressed by designing slightly larger spaces and capacity to add extra seating areas.

Another example is play areas.  This type of space has to be defined by the types of play activity that will occur.  What are the ages of the children (or adults).  How many guests need to be accommodated?  What special space requirements are necessary?  Do you need level ground or are there constraints on overhangs?  You may also want to address temporary facilities such as a swing set that can be replaced by a pergola when the children get older.

Another example is the client who states they want a garden.  You might want to explore how serious they are about this.  Are they long-term experience gardeners?  Is this something they are taking up for economic reasons to reduce their grocery bill?  What do they intend to grow?  Gardening for food requires serious commitment.  Exploring their needs in detail is important to establish what functionality is required.

Sometimes functions cannot be addressed.  For example, a client that wants afternoon sun but their yard is shaded from the west by their neighbor’s house and long standing trees.  You have to explain to the client that the neighbor’s house is not going away and the likelihood of them cutting down the trees is low.  In this case, you should explore why they are making the request.  If you get to the root need, you may be able to find another way to meet their requirements.

Sometimes requirements can conflict.  For example, a client that wants privacy but still wants to enjoy the great view.  These types of issues require some creative thinking.  Another common issue is constrains; physical or economic.  Space is a common constraint.  In this case, the client has to establish priorities.  How do they want to allocate what space they have to get the maximum benefit and value?  Other times things just are not feasible.  A site on a hillside, with rocky ground, or large surrounding offsite trees will limit what can be done.  You have to work with the client to find alternatives that will work or to reset their expectations if they want something that just isn’t realistic.

With all this emphasis on functionality, I am not minimizing the importance of aesthetics.  I just think you have to drive the design with function first.  You can make the functional space you create aesthetically pleasing.  This also does not preclude having an early inspiration.  There may be something about the site, some aspect of the client’s lifestyle, or something that the client expresses interest in that gives you an early inspiration for a design concept.  I am simply suggesting that functionality should be dealt with first and then work on the aesthetic elements.

Developing client usage scenarios is an important and useful analysis technique.  Use can use these scenarios to test you functional designs to make sure they meet the client’s requirements.  Once you are sure you have met the client’s needs the aesthetic elements can be added to create a great design the really functions.

Adding Value with an Experience Concept

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

As consumers, we purchase at four levels:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Validating the Aesthetic Elements

A few days ago I was explaining what this blog is all about in a conversation.  When we finished talking about the blog’s premise, it occurred to me that almost everything posted so far has dealt with functionality or usability of the site.  Nothing has been said about the aesthetic aspects of a landscape design.  Looking at a design from the perspective of validating that the design will work for the client, meet their needs, and provide the value they are seeking is probably easier to explain and theorize about how you might accomplish it when you consider the way people with use it rather than how it looks.

The aesthetic factors are obviously a lot more esoteric.  You have to consider what the clients asked for that can be validated.  Was it beauty, a particular style or color, or maybe a particular type of planting?  Beauty or attractiveness is very subjective.  Specific requests for a color or type of plant are more concrete and can be reviewed against the design program or the notes from the client meeting.  When the client asks for ease of maintenance there is a certain amount of subjectivity in measuring that.  Just as important, you have to consider that the client’s requests may not be appropriate for the site due to sun/shade, water, soil, deer, and other considerations.

The landscape design that is proposed needs to be evaluated against some criteria that is measurable from the standpoint of meeting a specific client request or need.  The actual measurement or validation should be specific and not open to subjective interpretation.  Some of the techniques and methods I have suggested for usable spaces have made use of analysis techniques to make sure that the client’s needs are being addressed.  I think the same approach is warranted.  Whatever aesthetic design elements are proposed need to come from careful analysis of any client requests and from the evaluation of the client’s site.  The resulting synthesis of that information can be applied to the proposed landscape design through the use of basic design principles and appropriateness of materials.

My initial thoughts about the use of 3D virtual reality had me thinking conceptually about the ability to show a client what the softscape materials would look like seasonally and over the course of several years.  The ability to computer generate time span scenarios would be very useful for showing seasonal changes and growth over time.  Some of the desktop software packages for creating 3D renderings have these capabilities.  VizTerra is one package that I have mentioned previously that has the ability to show growth and size changes in the 3D renderings.  I think these types of packages are worth considering from the standpoint of portraying how planting changes will appear over time.  There are other options available.  Storyboards showing major plants in various stages of their lifecycle would be one approach.  Creating a planting list with color palettes by season would be another.

Various approaches to validating aesthetic elements will be included in future postings along with additional techniques for validating the functional components.  I believe both sets of elements can be validated by applying appropriate analysis techniques and applying that information against the initial requirements and site analysis data.

Notes and Updates to July 2009 Posts

When I began looking at this idea of validating landscape designs, I envisioned a scenario where the designer would provide the client with an opportunity to fully experience the proposed design.  3D virtual reality was one possible solution.  My research led me to believe that this is being done in other fields but it just is not practical in its current form for landscape designers (See my July 1, 2009 post “The Trouble with Virtual Reality”).  Last week I had the opportunity to look closely at a new landscape design package, VizTerra by Structured Studios (http://www.structurestudios.com/website/vizterra/vizterra.html).  It is one of the best desktop design and 3D rendering packages I have seen to date.  I was impressed with the flexibility, control, and power.  The output renderings were extremely good and the designer can use the computer mouse to “walk” through the design changing the view.  VizTerra comes the closest to what I envisioned in a desktop software package.  It does not have the usage scenarios support that I think are extremely important in evaluating functionality.  However, once proficient in VizTerra a designer could create very powerful, compelling designs and walk clients through all of the elements and perspectives.

In my July 26,2009 post, “Before Drawing Look at Adjacency” I discussed the square and triangular formats.  A couple of notes to clarify some points.  First, the square matrix format can also be set up with the areas or components listed down the right side and the relationship or proximity code categories across the top.  This format eliminates the overlapping categories I mentioned in the original post.  A better name for this matrix using this alternative format would probably be Adjacency Relationship Matrix.  Second, the triangular format can also be called an “interaction matrix”.  The underlying purpose of the adjacency analysis is to uncover interactions between components.  The entire analysis could also be called an Interaction Analysis.

The Trouble with Virtual Reality

My initial thoughts for an approach to validating a design leaned towards 3D Virtual Reality.  I was thinking of the immersive virtual reality where you actually step into the simulated space and can interact within it.  I saw the non-immersive virtual reality that is available within a number of landscape design software packages as limited.  They would only allow you to change your point-of-view while looking at computer-generated perspective renderings of your design.

Doing more research, I discovered the there are facilities and the related technology for architectural firms to use for this purpose.  They can have AutoCAD drawing files converted into virtual reality spaces for clients to evaluate.  Like any type of immersive virtual reality, it requires specialized facilities and technical hardware.  Users have to don special equipment such as jump suits, gloves, and helmets so that their position is tracked within the virtual reality world.

It was not much of a jump for me to imagine a capability where a DynaSCAPE design file could be augmented with additional details and used for the same purpose.  More details about the softscape and hardscape materials would have to be entered.  The design would also require supporting detail about object heights such as the residence and any other structures.  If the data is loaded in the initial drawing and can interface the a plant material database it would be possible to show what the designed environment would look like and feel like over season changes and changes over a number of years.  Location data to plot geographic and climate data could be incorporated into a design and used to create further realism in the virtual simulation.

The issue I am trying to resolve though is deeper than appearance.  How can we give the client the sense of what the space will feel like and how it will perform in different situations.  Looking deeper into the virtual reality field, I found that the real power of virtual reality comes from the simulations that underlie them.  Aircraft manufacturers and airlines have been using virtual reality in their flight simulators for years.  They have also become very common in the railroad and shipping industries.  A simulator is very realistic for the pilot, train engineer, or ship captain in how it physically feels and in how it behaves in different situations.  Without usage scenarios, the person using the simulator is not really interacting with the virtual environment.

The designer needs to understand how a client will use a space in order to create the design.  Based on information from client interviews it would not be hard to pull together some test scenarios such as a family cookout, a neighborhood party, a large extended family gathering, and so forth.  To make a simulation realistic you would also need the “personas” of the users of the space.  In the case of the extended family gathering, the virtual reality system would need to generate characters to fill the space.  It would be helpful to have some idea of the mix of characters; how many young children, adults, seniors, etc.  There would not have to be a large amount of interaction between characters and users but have the space filled would simulate the real world occupancy and movement within and between spaces.

My conclusion is that for as exciting as this possibility might be, it just is not going to be practical for a number of reasons.  First, you have to decide at what point a design is worth going to this extra effort to validate.  Secondly, there are costs associated with the additional design details needed and the creation of the virtual reality itself.  The validation is also going to add time to the process that may delay implementation during what could be a short season.