Asking the client to describe an ordinary day
A home is also chosen based on the surrounding journeys and daily habits. Ask the household to describe their key journeys, schedules, services and everyday routines. Do not assume their preferences based on age, background or family composition. Work with expressed and verifiable criteria. A stated commute time must be observed under conditions relevant to the client.
The method in practice
Translate general criteria into observable situations. "Quiet" may refer to working from home, sleeping, street exposure, or building atmosphere. Ask when and in which room this matters. "Close" must be linked to a journey, a mode of transport, and a time of day. An average measurement does not replace testing under relevant conditions. Record the criterion and how to verify it. In the exercise, a home further away might nevertheless suit the actual commute; conversely, a central address does not guarantee an acceptable journey time. The concrete need is the benchmark for comparison.
Fictional example
‘Close to work’ could mean a predictable commute, access to specific public transport or the ability to return home for lunch. Have the client specify what matters most.
Replace assumptions with a question about actual usage.
Prioritising without deciding on behalf of the client
Separate what would make a property unacceptable from what would simply make it less attractive. Then ask what compromises the client is willing to consider. Two preferences may compete with each other: more space and a shorter commute, for instance. Priorities may evolve after a viewing. If so, restate the change and confirm that it accurately reflects the client's decision.
The method in practice
Classify the criteria alongside the participants, without deciding on their behalf. A non-negotiable must be identified as such and tested before ranking preferences. Unknown information remains open. You can propose a simple matrix, but it is up to the clients to explain the trade-offs they accept. Fictional example: A offers a separate work room; B is closer to a regular activity. If the need to work in peace is imperative, an overall score favouring B does not solve the issue. Clarify whether another layout could genuinely suit before reclassifying the constraint.
Fictional example
A garden was a preference. After discussion, the client confirms that an acceptable travel time remains essential. Your selection must reflect this priority.
An essential criterion does not disappear just because a viewing is impressive.
Presenting arguments based on localized facts
Present facts specific to the property and distinguish them from general local area information. Regional statistics do not automatically describe a specific neighbourhood. If the client broadens their search to Salé or Témara, treat these municipalities separately and review travel routes and documents. You can compare several options without pretending they belong to the same area.
The method in practice
Convey the logic of the recommendation using the household's own words. Show for each option what works, what requires a trade-off, and what still needs to be observed. Propose a verification action: a visit at a different time of day, measuring usable space, or testing the commute. The result of this test may alter the hierarchy. Keep this change as a new decision, not as a client error. Your role is to make the process understandable. If both options fail on a non-negotiable item, the consistent conclusion is to continue the search or explicitly review the constraint.
Fictional example
‘This option meets your requirement for space. The commute will need to be checked at times relevant to you before we agree on this compromise.’
The conclusion must be as precise as the available evidence.
Your practical application work
A household is comparing a more spacious home with an option that seems better located for their daily commute.
- Essential criteria to confirm
- The compromise associated with each option
- The verification that will help make a decision