5 comments

  • Andrew C, almost 2 years ago

    Where I work we use the double diamond. I like it because it makes clear the terms of each phase. Though one person’s idea of “divergent” could mean 2-3 problems, while to someone else it mean 20.

    Another thing either process need is an understanding of long term vision. Both processes focus on narrow slices, and risks only focusing on 1 problem along a user flow. Good experiences generally have a burden of focusing on many issues until a critical mass of user needs is fulfilled. You can/should do this in an agile way, but you need to close enough of the user flow gaps to fill user expectations. The risk here is if/when a competing problem becomes important to a department you may find yourself pressured to shift focus and this can fragmented products. One unfinished flow becomes 2, 3, 6 and you find yourself in a trap of piecemeal features.

    To make things more complex a shift in focus may also be the correct tactic given the pressures you’re facing from competition or the market. A shared vision can help teams know what to do in these areas of grey. Basecamps process solves this with concepts of appetite and scope.

    1 point
  • Sarah HSarah H, almost 2 years ago

    I'm using Double Diamond for the first time in one of my current projects, it aligns well with the way I intuitively work. Hadn't heard of Google Sprints before this, though.

    1 point
    • , almost 2 years ago

      Oooh interesting! I do think the double diamond feels like a more natural approach to design anyway and sprints just are a snazzy buzzword/approach for now!

      1 point
  • , almost 2 years ago

    This week I've been looking at the double diamond framework as well as the famous google sprints. I'd love to hear which format you prefer!

    1 point