ID POST common mistakes
ID POST · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Sizing circulation and clearance paths by eye from a furniture layout instead of measuring against published minimums for the specific overlap (e.g., clearance at the open dishwasher door, between a bed and closet, or at a bath vanity), then discovering the conflict only at the construction-document stage.
Candidates carry over loose schematic bubble-diagram thinking into design development and never convert to dimensioned checks; they also confuse 'typical' clearances with code-minimum ones and never reconcile the two.
What to do instead
Build a one-page clearance cheat sheet for each recurring condition (kitchen work aisles, appliance door swings, bedroom egress path, bath turning space) sourced from adopted code and manufacturer specs, and run every plan through it as a formal redline pass before advancing the drawing set.
Treating the plan as the only spatial document and failing to draw interior elevations and reflected ceiling plans that reconcile with it, so wall-mounted fixtures, window head heights, and soffits collide with casework or lighting on the job site.
Candidates under-budget drafting time and assume the plan plus a finish schedule communicates enough; they also skip the section/detail views that would expose conflicts.
What to do instead
Adopt a standing deliverable set (plan, RCP, four interior elevations per room, at least one section through each wet wall) and cross-check heights room by room before issue; treat elevation-to-plan coordination as a required QA step, not optional.
Specifying finishes by appearance and sample only, without verifying substrate compatibility, wet-area performance ratings, slip resistance, or manufacturer installation requirements, then having a tile or wood floor fail in service.
Candidates study products visually and memorize brand names rather than reading technical data sheets; they also assume the contractor will 'know' the correct adhesive or underlayment.
What to do instead
For every finish, write a three-line spec note capturing the performance criterion, the tested product standard, and the installation method; require the manufacturer's written installation instructions to be referenced in the specification and confirm wet-area and slip ratings against the code occupancy.
Missing the distinction between what the adopted code requires and what is merely good practice, and citing a code section for a recommendation it does not actually contain (common around stair geometry, guard heights, and bathroom ventilation).
Candidates memorize numbers without their scope and exceptions, and they mix code text with design guidelines from trade literature.
What to do instead
Annotate each memorized figure with its source, the condition it applies to, and its exceptions; when practicing, always state whether an item is code-required, code-referenced standard, or design preference, and verify against the adopted edition rather than a summary.
Designing kitchens and baths around appliance and fixture selections made after layout, so the refrigerator opening, range hood duct, or shower valve ends up fighting the framing and the cabinet plan.
Candidates sequence the project as 'layout first, selections later' and are uncomfortable pinning clients down early; they also underestimate how much mechanical and plumbing rough-in depends on the specific model.
What to do instead
Require model-specific specification sheets for every appliance and fixture before design development sign-off, and build the layout from those dimensions including service clearances, rough-in locations, and duct paths; make the selection deadline a contractual milestone.
Producing lighting layouts that count fixtures instead of layering light, with no consideration of task illuminance, color temperature consistency, or glare control, and no coordination with the electrical plan or dimming scheme.
Candidates default to a ceiling grid of recessed downlights because it is easy to draw, and they have not practiced computing or estimating illuminance levels or specifying lamp color consistency across a project.
What to do instead
Lay out by layer (ambient, task, accent, decorative) for each room, state target illuminance and color temperature in the lighting schedule, specify dimming protocol and driver compatibility, and review the layout against the RCP and furniture plan before issuing.
Writing vague scopes and allowances in the owner-designer agreement and in construction documents, then absorbing cost and schedule overruns because the boundary of responsibility was never defined.
Candidates focus on design content and treat contract language as boilerplate; they also avoid difficult conversations about exclusions, revisions, and additional services.
What to do instead
Draft a scope narrative with explicit inclusions and exclusions, a numbered list of deliverables, a revision limit, and defined allowances with a stated adjustment procedure; review the fee basis against the actual deliverable list before signing.
Failing to document client decisions and changes in writing, relying on verbal approvals, and then being unable to substantiate what was authorized when a dispute arises.
Candidates want to preserve rapport and treat documentation as distrust; they also lack a routine for capturing decisions during meetings.
What to do instead
Institute a decision log and a one-page meeting summary issued within a set number of days after every client meeting, with an explicit approval request; require written sign-off at each phase gate and treat silence as not approved.
Taking on a project outside competence or capacity (a structural alteration, a complex mechanical change, an unfamiliar occupancy) without bringing in the appropriate consultant, and discovering the gap mid-construction.
Candidates fear losing the commission or appearing inexperienced, and they overestimate how much of the work falls within interior design scope.
What to do instead
Maintain a written statement of qualifications and a consultant roster; at proposal stage, list the scope items requiring engineering or specialty input, price that coordination into the fee, and disclose the limits of your scope to the client in writing.
Managing schedule and budget reactively, without a milestone plan, procurement lead times, or a submittal and long-lead tracking log, so furniture and finishes arrive after the trades have finished and the punch list never closes.
Candidates plan design activities but not procurement and installation; they underestimate lead times for casework, tile, and custom furnishings and do not build float into the schedule.
What to do instead
Build a milestone schedule that includes order dates derived from lead times, a submittal log with review turnaround, a delivery and installation sequence, and a punch-list closeout procedure; review the log at every project meeting and flag slippage against the critical path.