What if Design Validation Doesn’t Work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Design Boundaries and the Validation Process

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

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

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

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

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

Design Outcome versus Design Process

The results of our design projects are as varied as there are clients.  Some designs will be “static” spaces such as front yard beds.  Other spaces, such as an outdoor patio entertaining space, are much more dynamic.  I believe the key to meeting your client’s needs is to focus on the process rather than the outcome.  Don’t assume the project is to create a new patio.  Understand what the client wants.  Following a design process helps assure that you are not jumping to a conclusion about what needs to be done.

No space is entirely static.  Other spaces are extremely dynamic.  These are the spaces where focusing on the process will pay off.  Dynamic is a relative term.  Dynamic spaces will need to function in a variety of scenarios, be flexible, adapt over time, as well as provide the necessary aesthetic appeal.  This is a difficult set of goals but they can be achieved by following a process and validating at each phase of the process.  Dynamic spaces need to meet multiple goals.  Tradeoffs have to be made.  Priorities have to be addressed.  Following a design process forces you to go through the data gathering, analysis, and synthesis necessary to accomplish this.

Simply creating an outcome or result without considering the dynamics may provide an aesthetically pleasing space but most likely will not meet the full expectation of the client.  Following the process creates the framework that allows you to evaluate all of needs, problems, and opportunities in a systematic manner so that nothing is left uncovered.

Elaboration / Reduction Cycles

Gathering client needs and site data is an exercise in elaboration.  We want to increase and expand what we know about the client and the site and we want to look for opportunities.  Those opportunities may come from the client’s lifestyle or interests, some aspect of the site, or from the context of the surrounding properties, neighborhood, etc.  After we gather data and uncover potential opportunities the analysis / synthesis process is an exercise in reduction.  We want to take all of the data and information we have, and reduce it to its essential elements; a set of prioritized and focused needs and requirements.  At this point, we begin another exercise in elaboration; exploring design concepts and possibilities.  Of all the opportunities and possibilities that are available, which ones will work best with our criteria and meet our needs.  Paring that evaluation down into a focused design solution is another exercise in reduction.  The diagram below depicts this process.

Elaboration Reduction Cycles

The transition points between elaboration and reduction correspond with the key validation points within the validation design process model.

Elaboration / Reduction Phase	Key Validation Points	Results
Elaboration	End of Data Gathering	All client needs and site data identified and captured
Reduction	End of Analysis / Synthesis	Focused and prioritized requirements
Elaboration	End of Creative Development	All potential design solutions considered
Reduction	Client approval of Design Program	Focused design solution

Iterative approaches to design are frequently perceived as being used strictly to refine, narrow, and focus the information we have and make design decisions.  However, part of the design process is exploration.  The elaboration portions of the design process are where that exploration occurs.  Effectively using reduction to narrow information and data into manageable sets combined with elaboration to explore design possibilities improves the results of the design process.  The transition points between elaboration and reduction also fit into the validation design process model and support obtaining what we need to validate the design as we move through the process.

The Analysis-Synthesis Interrelationship

One of the questions that arises in discussing the design process is the concept of Synthesis; specifically the analysis-synthesis relationship.  Analysis seems to be more universally understood; or at least people seem to think they understand it.  Synthesis is the gray area to many people.  What does it mean?  What is it?  How does synthesis follow or flow from analysis?  A common explanation of analysis and synthesis is that analysis is taking things apart and synthesis is putting things together.  Analysis is really much more than taking things apart.  Synthesis is more than putting things together.

In analysis, you can take a set of data and group or categorize it.  You can split it into more detail data.  You can merge it with other sets of data to see relationships.  You can sort or rearrange the data.  You can strip out portions of the data that have particular characteristics that you want to examine.  The list goes on.  The point being that analysis is a very rich and complex process that has many techniques that are useful in different circumstances.

All of the analytical techniques I have discussed so far provide you with data that can be used in making design decisions and developing your design concept.  A heat map, which is based on client priority rankings, helps you determine which features, spaces, amenities, etc. should have priority.  Form composition allows you to analyze layouts and find the best one for the site and the possible spaces you are considering.  Space adjacency allows you to determine how potential spaces should relate to one another.  Bubble or functional diagrams allow you to look at the ways specific areas can be configured based on your space adjacency analysis.  Each analytical tool provides additional information that helps you refine your decisions and move your design concept forward.  That is synthesis in essence.  You are building understanding and evaluating what you learn to refine your decisions and concepts.  You may develop information from an analysis that causes you to go back and rethink earlier analysis.  That is part of the iterative process.  The nature of the analysis-synthesis relationship is that the two techniques interplay and work with each other to accumulate information that is used and reused to develop your final design concept.

Other things come into play in developing a design concept.  There is the designer’s experience.  There may be a particular feature on the site that can be capitalized on.  The client’s may have a theme or style that they want used.  These are the soft data or qualitative factors that come into play.  They are part of the accumulation of information that is synthesized into the design concept.  They can be just as important if not more important than the data analysis in developing the design.  The analytical tools are the foundation for validation of the design.  They help answer important questions that are the crux of design decisions.

During the analysis-synthesis process, the results of analysis should be evaluated against the hard criteria established for the project.  This includes constraints, budget, feasibility, client needs, and all of the known limitations and opportunities.  Since synthesis is a much more fluid process, the results that come from the process are more evolutionary.  They evolve out of ideation, analysis, preliminary concepts, and other types of soft data.  The concepts that form out of synthesis also need to be evaluated.  However, the criteria is more aesthetic and conceptual.  Do the design concepts developed fit into the style and architecture of the residence?  Do they fit with the image and style we are trying to create?  Are they in line with the ideas that we had?  During either part of the process, analysis, or synthesis, if the answers are not making sense, it is time to step back and re-evaluate.  Again, that is the iterative process.

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 – Client Contact, Interaction, and Management

In describing my high-level design model, I overlapped every phase of design development with the client.  Throughout this blog, I have made the case for constant client input, feedback, and dialog.  The process of client interact starts at the first meeting.  In this particular post, I am focusing on the interaction that goes on after that first meeting.

Initially, your objective for having more interaction with the client is likely to be getting a better handle on the client.  What are their interests?  What are their preferences?  Do they favor a particular style?  What are their real motives for this project?  Do they really understand what they are asking for?  Are their priorities accurate and realistic?  These types of questions help you narrow down the client’s requirements and prioritize them.  They also help you make appropriate design decisions later.

You don’t want to be a pest and drive the client crazy with a lot of questions every day.  Some of the things that I think work well during the Data Gathering phase include field trips, brainstorming sessions, and follow-up site visits.

Field trips to look at other properties, hardscape materials, and softscape materials are an excellent way to discover the client’s preferences and help them come to terms with the choices that are available.  A field trip also gives you a chance to ask questions and learn more about the client.  In addition, if you have any particular ideas, you can show these to the client to get their reaction.

Brainstorming sessions work really well with knowledgeable clients.  They are readily able to discuss ideas and have an understanding of plants, materials, etc.  Brainstorming with less knowledgeable clients requires you to find ways to stimulate the discussion.  This can include your portfolio, pictures, samples, etc.  Brainstorming works best if you can do it in the space you are working in.  You just have to be able to take notes and deal with any materials you have with you for the session.  Again, this is a good way to find out more about the client as well as develop the client’s personal involvement in the project.

Going back to the client site for a follow-up visit or two isn’t a bad idea either.  You may have the opportunity to talk to the client in a different context and in a more relaxed manner.  Even if you don’t need any particular information from the site, dropping by for a second look gives you time with the client and an opportunity to learn more about them.

When you are in the Analysis / Synthesis phase you may need additional client input.  For example, after you start looking at space allocation, adjacency, priorities, etc. you may need to review your conclusions with the client.  For these types of meetings where you need input and have questions, I find it best to be well prepared.  Make sure the issues or questions are clear.  You should be able to explain the issue or question to the client so that they really understand it.  Second, I always try to come prepared with a solution to offer.  Obviously if it is a major issue, you want to help the client work through it.  For more general issues or questions, you should have a recommendation but try to get the client to make the decision.  Be sure to have any supporting materials including pictures, drawings, diagrams, etc. to support your presentation.  These not only help the client understand the topic they also demonstrate the work you have done for them so far.

At the end of Analysis / Synthesis, you should meet with the client to review the design program and obtain their concurrence.  Your presentation of the design program represents the culmination of everything you have learned and concluded about the client and site to this point.  The client’s acceptance or agreement to the design program represents their approval of your interpretation of their needs and requirements.  You should also be well prepared for this presentation.  You should have all support evidence available that you used in creating the design program.  It can be extremely useful to be able to refer back to previous meetings, discussions, field trips, and other interactions with the client while making your presentation.

Questions and issues are less likely to come up during the Creative Development phase but they can on occasion.  The same process and recommendations suggested above apply here also; be clear and be prepared.  The major client interaction in Creative Development is the presentation of the preliminary design.  Most of my comments above about presenting the design program apply here also.  Your design should be easy to justify based on the design program and other supporting materials you have gathered or prepared.  Referring to things the client has said during previous sessions makes this presentation that much easier.

There are numerous advantages to spending more time with the client.  Granted it does take up more of your time.  I believe the result is a design that is better targeted to the client’s needs because you have spent the time to fully and completely understand what those needs are.  You also have a client that has seen you work for them and with them throughout the project.  You aren’t just presenting a design; you are presenting the result of a collaborative effort.

Design Process Model – The Creative Development Key Validation Point

The third key validation point is at the end of Creative Development.  Like the first two key validation points at the end of Data Gathering and Analysis / Synthesis, this is a threshold point to help you decide if you conceived a preliminary design that addresses all client needs, site issues and opportunities, and the elements in your design program.  The overlap with the Analysis / Synthesis phase is again built in to allow you the opportunity to conduct further analysis if you feel it is warranted.

Key Validation Points

The result or output of Creative Development is a preliminary design to be presented to the client.  This would include any supporting, collateral materials such as digitally enhanced photos, drawings, display boards, samples, etc.

Chances are that by this point you may have already started developing some of these materials.  It can be useful during the last part of Analysis / Synthesis to explore design concepts.  Any of these preliminary materials should be reused or revised if appropriate.  Otherwise, you can begin developing your preliminary design based on the results of the form compositions, functional diagrams, supporting analysis materials, and design program you have created.

Whatever you choose to develop and use in your preliminary design presentation should be reviewed thoroughly to validate that it supports your findings and conclusions developed to this point.  Some evidence of a need or opportunity that you discovered should support each element, feature, benefit, and aspect of the preliminary design.  Going through this exercise is extremely useful in preparing for the client presentation.  You will be fully prepared to explain and justify your design decisions.

A completely validated preliminary design sets the stage for the final phase of design development, which is the creation of your Client Deliverables.  Everything you have done to this point suggests that you have a design concept that should meet all client needs and expectations.  There should not be any issues that would preclude the client from accepting your design.  All of you preliminary design materials can be finalized for presentation to the client.  The preliminary design materials should be reused as much as possible in creating your final deliverables to the client.

Validating you data, analysis, conclusions, and designs minimizes the amount of rework you may need to do.  It is unlikely that the client will completely reject a preliminary design that is thoroughly validated against their needs and the specific requirements of their site.  Also, the high-level model provides for constant client contact and feedback.  Prior to the presentation of the preliminary design, there should have been client contact and feedback from the initial meeting and the review of the design program.  This would be the absolute minimum of client contact.  Interim contact and review sessions should be conducted whenever more information is needed of if it appropriate to obtain client buy-in and concurrence on specific issues.

My last three posts have dealt with the key validation points.  In the next post, I will be reviewing the client contact activities and how they fit into the key validation points and the four phases.

Design Process Model – The Analysis / Synthesis Key Validation Point

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

Key Validation Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Landscape Design Process Models — Does the process work?

Landscape design process models tend to be linear descriptions of what we do.  For this discussion, I am not including anything beyond final design.  No construction or maintenance phases are included.  The typical linear model has major activities divided into several “steps”.  For example:

• Research and preparation
• Design

Or a model with more phases:

• Initiation
• Analysis
• Synthesis
• Design

Regardless of the terminology or name of the phase, you move from one phase of design to the next in a clear sequential order.  Each phase is completed and the next begins.  A few authors have addressed this issue.  Some do refer to iterative approaches or the use of cycling through analysis and synthesis to resolve or reduce the design issues.  Occasionally, there may be a reference to iterating back to an earlier phase, but the assumption is usually to move sequentially, phase to phase.

I have been a proponent of iterative design and development methods for thirty years.  Using iterative design methods provides numerous advantages.  These include early client feedback and acceptance, catching problems sooner rather than letter, and the ability to incrementally develop solutions.

The term iterative can mean different things.  First, it can mean cycling between phases such as between analysis and synthesis, refining the data to develop a design program or design concept.  It can mean developing a project in phases, each small piece being an iteration of the development of the project as a whole.  I tend to use the term, with reference to landscape design, as an approach that focuses on frequent client input and feedback and secondly, not being afraid to take a step back and go through steps a second time to make sure they are complete and correct.  In other words, iterate the process until you validate that it is complete and correct.

My opinion is that the linear models provide direction.  They provide structure and give you an approach.  However, the way to move between or through phases should be dependent upon the project and the designer’s preferences.  Within a phase model, customize the sequence and timing of process steps to suit the needs of the project.

The design process as a whole is not as important as the process steps and methods you utilized during the process.  For example, virtually every design process starts with an initiation phase.  It may be labeled Initiation, Discovery, Orientation, or something similar.  For our purposes, this is where we get to know the client, view the site, uncover client needs, gather information, and all of the background activities that are necessary to find out exactly what the client wants and what we have to work with.

It would be nice to place all those activities into one nice neat phase, complete them, and move on.  However, two very real things happen.  First, you may have to go back to discovery activities later in the project.  You may need to review the site again, question the client further, or undertake some other basic research.  New facts have a way of cropping up throughout a project.  We have to deal with those facts.  The second thing that happens is that as designers we start analyzing immediately.  Everything the client says and every observation is analyzed at least at some subconscious level.  We automatically throw ourselves into an Analysis phase even though we are just starting a Discovery phase.

I think technology has given us a set of tools that allow us to circumvent the design process even further.  It is very easy to gather some information and then sit at a computer a mock up design rapidly.  The quality of those designs is so impressive that clients may be ready to sign off on what they see.  However, no real thought or analysis has been accomplished that determines if those designs are right for the client or what the client really needs.

In subsequent posts, I am going to be developing a landscape design process model that addresses activities and steps that support validation.  That model will look similar to other models you may have seen.  What I think you will find different is that it builds confidence at each phase that the final design is right for the client.

Challenges of Working from Reality to Abstraction to Reality

When we take on a project for a client, that client has a space that exists in a current state.  That will include any structures, hardscape, and softscape in place.  Other elements such as views, orientation, neighboring properties, etc. will also be in place.  This is the client’s current reality.  Everything we do going forward, including analysis, synthesis, ideation, conceptualizing, and so forth is with the intention of bringing the client a new reality.  Depending on the needs, existing state, budget, and other factors that change from current to future reality may be large or small.

There are two challenges in make this change a reality.  The first is that we have to create a design of what that future state will be.  The second challenge is to creatively depict that future state in a manner that the client can clearly comprehend and feel confident will meet their needs.  In both of these challenges we are working in abstraction.  We need to convert existing reality to an abstract design concept.  Then convert that concept into representations for the client to review and use to imagine their future reality.  Only when the client actually has the completed design built do they go back to a state of reality.

The first challenge, conceptualizing an abstract design concept is pretty much what we are expected to do as designers.  We take all of our available information about the client, site, and surrounding context, synthesize that along with our ideas and experience and conceive a design concept.  This is where I believe all of the analysis pays off.  If we have enough raw data from our interviews and observations and a substantial amount of generated analytical data, it should be much easier to determine where the “sweet spots” are within the design problem.  That really is what synthesis is all about.  It is seldom one or two things.  More likely three, four, or more elements from the client needs, client preference, site context, local environment, or some other factor will gel together into one of those insights that screams out “this will work.”

We build on that “this will work” moment to prepare the design for client presentation.  This second challenge is also difficult.  We have to select the right presentation format and views to give the client the best possible picture of their potential future reality.  What we want is a presentation that screams the same message that we saw in our insight, “this will work.”  There really isn’t any answer to this one.  It is a function of what the client is receptive to, what you as a designer are comfortable creating, and what will work in the presentation.

The presentation drawings, pictures, plans, samples, and other materials you use will vary from client to client and project to project.  You have to pick what will work for that particular design and project.  Ideally, your presentation materials should communicate the “this will work” message in a compelling manner.  It should support your analysis and synthesis of the data and show how you validated that the design concept will meet their needs.  The tools we have available now are much more powerful for communicating that abstract idea and showing clients what their future reality could be.  The presentation must also demonstrate the validation behind the idea and convey that the new reality will work for the client.

Tracing Requirements Through the Design Process

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

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

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

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

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

Overview of Landscape Design Validation Issues and Process

When I first started looking into the concept of validating landscape designs I prepared a diagram to help understand and explain the issues and process.  A copy of that diagram is shown below.

Design Process Interrelationships

Beginning in the upper left, clients obviously have a site.  The also have needs and values.  They may have a vision.  They may also have some prior experience with landscape design as either do-it-yourselfers or using a designer.  All of the clients “soft” components, needs, values, vision, and experience, combine to form the basis for the client’s expectations from their design.

The designer, in the upper right, completes a site analysis and a client analysis.  That information is used to perform analysis, synthesize the data, and develop design ideas and concepts.  The designer completes the design process creating a final design.  Changes to the client’s site as a result of that design create either a positive or negative experience for the client.

At the bottom center of the diagram are the potential results of positive and negative outcomes for the designer.  All of them in some form are related to client satisfaction and the benefits that come from having happy clients.

Across the lower center of the diagram, the red double-headed arrow highlights the two areas of concern for validation.  First, do we have all client needs and requirements and are they right?  Second, does the design meet the client’s needs and requirements?  Will it meet their expectations?

As I have indicated before, my initial thoughts on this problem were toward 3D virtual reality as a way to validate that the design would work for the client.  Subsequently, many of my posts have been focused on analysis and documentation that can be used as validation tools.  However, the question of making sure all client needs and requirements are obtained and obtained correctly needs to be addressed.

Although I think this diagram explains the fundamental issues and processes, I think the segment from the designer to the design on the right side of the diagram needs to be depicted in more detail.  The tools, procedures, and iterative steps need to be defined.  My August 28, 2009 post, “A Layer Design Model?” [http://ldvalidate.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/a-layer-design-validation-model/] discusses some of my early thoughts on this model.

Positioning Spaces — by Function or by Location

Site analysis often uncovers or reveals spaces that are ideal for specific functions or should be capitalized on.  For example, a backyard view of a nearby lake.  Often the reverse is discovered.  There may be spaces that are noisy, windy, or hot.  We discover and document these situations during our site analysis.  Concurrently, we work with the client to discover their requirements.  With all of information gathered and documented, we begin analyzing and synthesizing data and developing design responses.

The question that arises is where and how to go about positioning spaces.  Do you begin with bubble or functional diagrams with interconnections and manipulate them into desirable locations and away from undesirable ones?  Or do you position spaces in desirable locations first and then weave in related spaces and connections?

The first approach puts emphasis on adjacency and function.  The later method puts emphasis on optimal placement as determined by site factors.  I do not believe that one approach is better than the other is.  Which you choose or if you use both is a personal choice.  What is important is that the design response be validated against the requirements.  If the requirements are not met, a new design response must be found.

A big part of analysis and synthesis is resolving conflicts.  In the previous example of an ideal lake view, it may not be practical to place a main patio or deck in a position to take advantage of the view.  The design response may become a destination terrace or seating area away from the main outdoor space connected by a walkway.

Coming to a final design solution requires thorough site analysis, full understanding of client requirements, thoughtful analysis, and the patience to synthesize all of the data.  That done we use our knowledge of design to create and test responses that meet the requirements and pass the constraints and opportunities developed through our analysis.

The positioning of spaces or functions is less a matter of how and more an issue of why.  Validation tells us why we made that decision.

Elaborating and Reducing Data with Graphic Tools

A designer has to work within three spheres of information and constraints.  Those three are:  the client’s needs which includes the performance or functional requirements, the context of the site, and form or design concept.

The functional or performance requirements sphere includes items such as:

• Budget
• Goals and Objectives
• Priorities
• Preferences
• Space requirements
• Relationships between spaces
• Maintenance preferences
• Access needs
• Environmental considerations

The site context sphere includes items such as:

• Site location and orientation
• Zoning
• Community or neighborhood covenants
• Climate (regional macro)
• Climate (micros)
• Neighboring buildings
• Topography
• Geology
• Soil conditions
• Access for vehicles and pedestrians
• Existing hardscape
• Existing softscape
• House architecture
• Views (inward / outward)

The form / design sphere includes items such as:

• Zoning constraints
• Community or neighborhood covenants constraints
• House architecture
• Enclosure (screening)
• Climate control
• Image / style preferences
• Lines of force
• Regional / local style

These are not exhaustive lists.  Each list could be expanded and elaborated upon.  Also, every project can have unique elements.  However, within these examples, there are obvious areas of overlap within the three spheres.  It is also obvious that the designer has a great deal of information to manage and synthesize.  This is where I believe graphic tools become extremely important to a designer.  Graphic tools help manage the volume of data and help the designer make sense of it.

Many of the elements within in these three spheres can be quantified or represented with hard data.  Some, such as zoning or covenant restrictions establish constraints or limits.  Each information element should be captured and represented as clearly and succinctly as possible.  Graphic representations are an excellent way to do that.  The technique, tool, or method will vary depending upon the type of information.  The fundamental purpose is to summarize the data so it is meaningful and can be easily assimilated.

There is a paradox within this process.  Gathering all of this information and data is a process of elaboration.  However, by elaborating you are seeking opportunities and solutions within the project.  Summarizing the information is an exercise in reduction.  Reducing the data to its essence aids in decision-making.  You have to gather the data to find the opportunities and you have to summarize it to make the best decisions.

Summarizing information makes it easier to manipulate and work with.  It easier to find relationships between data elements.  Common problems can be identified and grouped.  Elements can be combined to create new possibilities or opportunities for creative design solutions.  The trick is to have the data reduced to a volume that is easily viewed, manipulated, and understood.

As a rule designers are very good at using visual diagrams and drawings to represent and present solutions.  These visuals are used to as problem solvers.  They are presented as solutions to the client’s needs and issues.  The use of graphic tools by a designer during the analysis phase will allow them to use visuals as problem definers or problem identifiers.  This is a very different mindset for many designers.

When graphic tools and visuals are used both ways; problem definition and problem solution it becomes much easier to evaluate the two sets side-by-side and validate that the design solution addresses the problems and needs of the client.  This is the ultimate goal.  I realize that gathering all of the data and summarizing it graphically takes time.  However, having the validation that issues were addressed in the design solution will result in much higher client satisfaction.

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.

Visual Tools – the hard and soft of it

I am a big believer in visual tools.  Landscape designers use plan views, elevations, drawings, and other presentation devices to communicate their intent to clients.  However, there is a lack of use of visual tools by designers for their own analytical and decision-making purposes.

There are a number of tools designers can apply during the early phases of a project.  These tools will allow the designer to organize, analyze, and synthesize their data to make better decisions and make sure that nothing is overlooked.

We can consider tools as being hard or soft.  I consider hard tools to be paper, pencils, pens, markers, tablet PCs, laptop, desktop, or handheld computers, digital cameras, GPS devices, etc.  Even Smartphones can be included.  (I am actually writing this on a Windows-based phone.)

Soft tools cover a much larger range of things.  I include skills, techniques, methods, and software in this group.  An all-inclusive list of soft tools is impossible to compile.  However, if we look at some examples you will get a sense of what is in this group.  First, Using pencil and paper a designer may make a quick sketch the site and take baseline measurements.  Subsequently, the designer may transfer this sketch to a formal DynaSCAPE drawing.  Both are soft tools.  Second, the designer could create a mind map of notes from the client meeting.  This could be done on paper or with a handheld computer or similar device.  Again, back in the office the designer could transfer this to a specific mind map software package or to a generic software tool like PowerPoint or Visio.  Lastly, a designer could hand sketch some elevations of the site or take digital photos.

Soft tool usage is not about whether the tool is manual or electronic.  It is about using the tool.  The real bottom line with all of the tools is first, using them and second, how they are used.

It is one thing to take a stack of notes from the client interview and the site analysis, review them, and start creating the preliminary design.  It is another to take the same data, sort it, organize it, represent it graphically, manipulate it, analyze it, and then work through a process of evaluating design alternatives.  I know the second approach takes longer.  However, by going through the effort better decisions are made and the risk of an oversight is reduced.  Representing the data gathered graphically affords the opportunity to manipulate it visually to explore options and alternatives.  It also helps validate the designers thinking, which fundamentally is the source of the design.  All of the graphic, visual analysis also makes a great sales tool.  It demonstrates the thought process of the designer and their consideration of alternatives.