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.
Thanks for this comment! And you're right, the long term vision is incredibly important.
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.
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!
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!