Summary

We established a client-consultant relationship between students in Landscape Description Studio (LAR 600, taught by Myers) and Natural Resources Measurements (NR 300, taught by Hess). Design and consulting teams worked together to create plans for developing Schenck Forest as a forestry and environmental education center. Students in both classes were exposed to the realities of collaborative work, particularly differences in conventions, culture, and terminology among disciplines that can hamper clear communication. Students found this exposure enlightening.

We used geographic information system (GIS) products to communicate site data from consultant to client and exposed the Landscape students to the capabilities of GIS. However, we were unable to complete project design using GIS technology to the degree that we had hoped, largely because of scheduling issues and limited access to GIS in the Landscape Architecture studios. Neither of these difficulties is insurmountable. In this first offering, we exerted significant control over the technical products requested of the Natural Resources class. We believe that students in both classes would benefit more from the process if we established the project parameters and just turned them loose, providing technical instruction and guidance as needed.

Narrative

We established a client-consultant relationship between students in Landscape Description Studio and Natural Resources Measurements. The goals of this effort were to expose students to a realistic client-consultant relationship, increase communication across disciplinary boundaries, and increase awareness of the capabilities and limitations of geographic information systems (GIS) technology.

Six design teams of three to four people each were established in the Landscape Studio. The design teams were asked to submit plans for developing Schenck Forest as a forestry and environmental education center. Each design team was assigned to a consulting team of six to seven people in the Natural Resources class. Design teams crafted program statements for the project. During the preparation of these statements, they explored issues related to aging, universal accessibility, forest ecology and maintenance and public recreation needs with the help of the consulting teams.

The consulting teams learned and used geographic information systems (GIS) technology to produce a series of maps for the design teams. They also compiled soils interpretive data and provided other technical information as needed. Meetings, electronic mail, and telephone conversations were used to exchange and develop base information for the site. Through this process, the students gained an understanding of the need for and application of various data and technical expertise. In addition, design and consulting teams learned how to communicate effectively so that design teams received useful information in a timely manner.

Design teams used the technical information to prepare preliminary plans that were reviewed and critiqued by the consulting teams at a joint meeting. Dialogue between design and consulting teams continued after this review, culminating in the presentation of master plans to the consulting teams, and Natural Resources and Landscape Architecture faculty. Master plans were also exhibited in Biltmore Hall for viewing by a larger audience.

Did we meet our goals?

We were successful in establishing a client-consultant relationship, but believe the relationship can be even more realistic. In this offering, we specified the maps and much of the technical information required. In the future, we would allow the design and consulting teams more latitude to discover and satisfy needs on their own.

We were successful in increasing communication across disciplinary boundaries. Students in both classes were exposed to the realities of collaborative work, particularly differences in conventions, culture, and terminology among disciplines that can hamper clear communication. One of the more interesting dialogues involved coming to grips with different conventions and expectations for maps scales. The design teams insisted on a particular scale and the consulting teams wondered "What's the difference? Just measure things at the appropriate scale." When the consulting teams began to understand the overlay process that designers use for site planning, the need for maps at a uniform scale became clear.

Our success in increasing awareness and use of GIS was more limited. The consulting teams actually learned to use a GIS to produce and analyze data. The design teams, however, only received a brief introduction and did not incorporate use of GIS into the project. The reasons for this were scheduling issues and limited access to GIS in the Landscape Architecture studios. The Landscape Architecture Department is upgrading computing capabilities, which should eliminate access problems over the next two years. We presented GIS to the design teams too late in the course for it to be incorporated successfully into the project. Reorganizing the order in which projects are assigned and GIS is presented should remove this barrier.