As with many venues of Professional Services, there are many false assumptions about process, scope and cost. Interior Design is no exception. Those incorrect assumptions (and exaggerations) are usually based on misinformation, “competitive edging” or just plain ignorance of the facts.
For a potential client with a design vision, misinformation can be destructive and disappointing. To believe your ideas, vision and project is out of reach — based on discouraging information — is not only a shame, but speaks to the negative impacts that rumor can have on opportunities for good business and successful projects.
The professional interior design role in site construction or modification is as essential as the plumbing, electrical and all the other sub-contracted service venues. Understanding the relationships of one essential aspect to another clarifies the importance of learning what is needed — and where to access that skill.
The assumption that interior design is the same as interior decorating is an assumption that is comparable to assuming that the intricacies of plumbing or electrical engineering and specific installation placements is the same as the lighting fixtures or appliances that they access.
Imagine the nightmare that can develop if the commercial interior design, for the end user’s specific needs, was not appropriately coordinated with the basic, essential locations and access developed and installed at construction!
Architects, engineers and interior designers work in concert to achieve the right, balanced, coordinated finished environment for the intended end use. That coordinated design team occurs in many ways. There are firms that house all skills, under one roof; there are others that specialize in one aspect and sub-contract the other needed expertise.
It is unfortunate that the situation I have coined, and refer to above, as “competitive edging” does exist. It can occur when a “specialized” (or limited) venue may wish to offer the related service themselves; or, may simply convince their prospective client that another specialist is simply not needed, is an extravagance and represents an added and unnecessary expense — expense that might harm their competitive edge.
Examples exist in any format or venue where a principal is driving and influencing the prospect’s cost perceptions by “advising against!”
De-motivating a prospect away from other needed services or expertise (for self-serving reasons) is just plain unethical. Unlike simply advising caution, one specialist probably should exercise care and not try to “wing it” by offering unfamiliar or unqualified services. When that is attempted, with the rationale of saving them unnecessary expense, that approach can and has created expensive problems.
“Buyer beware” is at play in such situations. As a prospective design project client, you should beware of any specialist that seems to be enthusiastically motivating you away from additional sources that can inform your critical decisions. Your ethical Design Team will offer all the appropriate options for you to explore.
Robert Boccabella, B.F.A. is principal and founder of Business Design Services and a certified interior designer (CID) in private practice for 30 years. Boccabella provides Designing to Fit the Vision© in collaboration with writingservice@earthlink.net. To contact him call 707-263-7073; email him at rb@BusinessDesignServices.com or visit www.BusinessDesignServices.com or on Face Book at Business Design Services.
