If you are a designer, you are probably familiar with the double diamond design process model. It was created by the British Design Council in 2005 and is still taught in design schools today. Since then, the process of design has changed, most notably with the adoption of agile practices and a start up mentality. Newer design process models have appeared, but I do not think they illustrate current best practice. Here's my attempt at fixing that.

First, let's set the scene with a little history about design process models. The earliest model that I am aware of is the Universal Traveler's "Traveler's Map". This was developed in the 1970s and is remarkably similar to the models that have developed since, suggesting that there is a fundamental approach to creative problem solving. Compared to current thinking, it is a little light on user-centredness, focusing more on the creative process, now known as design thinking.

Next came the double diamond. What is nice about this model is that it reveals the broadening and narrowing of scope along the design process. The discovery phase is one of casting a broad research net to understand the problem, then distilling that in to a clearly defined problem. Development also expands in scope as you let go of constraints and ideate, only to narrow down and refine the solutions that you ultimately deliver.

The other well known model is the Stanford d.school design thinking process. This model is also linear and follows a similar process, but is presented somewhat simplistically. It has since been updated to be more cyclical, at the expense of simplicity.

Most recently, there have been a number of lean and agile models which try to show how design fits in. Because agile was developed by programmers, most models are very developer focused and lack a design thinking approach or user focus. The other notable difference is that they are emphatically cyclical unlike previous models. Yet, to my knowledge, there is no authoritative model that designers turn to in order to explain how design can be lean and agile.

To solve this problem, I have created a new model and in (a cheeky) homage to the double diamond, named it The Double Doughnut. It can be divided in to two parts and 6 steps. Though I have broken this process into discrete steps, I prefer to see it as a seamless process with ill-defined boundaries at best.

Exploration involves designing a research method and gathering information to understand the problem. Even in later iterations, after a product has been released, there is an exploration to understand problems that arise in the current release.

Analysis is the process of turning information into knowledge to gain a thorough (but shallow) understanding of the problem-scape.

Insight is the deep understanding of a problem by distilling it into root causes and interrelationships of various parts of the problem-scape. You should be asking the 5 whys throughout the entire problem identification stage, but it is particularly important here.

Ideation is the unconstrained generation of the seeds of ideas, to be weeded or cultivated later.

Synthesis is the convergence of problem, idea and constraints to form a practical solution and reject lesser ones.

Evaluation is the assessment of a solution's effectiveness by testing with users for the purpose of refining a design. Testing can mean testing a prototype or measuring the effectiveness of a shipped product. Implicit in this step is the understanding that design is never finished and can always be improved.

It is also worth noting that each circle - problem identification and solution development - can be repeated before progressing to the other circle. So, a couple of research cycles may be needed before the right questions are being asked or the problem is understood well enough to start solving with designs.

Initially, I thought I could call the double doughnut a design process, but on reflection, it is more than that. It actually is an innovation process. Design is no longer a silo that can be practised within just the design team. Design is no longer just a means of "solving the right problem and solving the problem right". Let's also ask ourselves if we can solve the problem in a fundamentally different and better way by looking at the problem from the ground up. By placing equal importance on the research phase as the design phase (double diamond), exercising design thinking (d.school), iterating in small sprints (agile) and learning from our experiences (lean), it is about innovating (i.e. meeting the needs of the customer in a better way not done before) quickly and competitively. For designers to maximise their potential and innovate, (establishing, rather than just reusing design patterns) the process of innovation needs to be understood and supported by all stakeholders in the organisation. Hopefully, this diagram can help in this regard.

Finally, I want to examine the complementary nature of the steps in the two circles to thoroughly understand this process.

Exploration-ideation: exploration and ideation are the initial understandings of the problem and solutions respectively. Because you are bootstrapping your understanding of a problem, exploration requires the creativity to imagine scenarios and hypothesise about areas that are worthy of study. Likewise, ideation requires an exploratory mindset in which you probe, question and discover the unimagined.

Analysis-synthesis: both are intermediate steps involving information or ideas that produce patterns or designs which are greater than the sum of their parts.

Insight-testing: both are a true understanding of the problem and solution respectively. Only by understanding the root of a problem do you truly understand it. Only by seeing a solution through the eyes of the user do you truly understand its effectiveness.

The double doughnut elegantly illustrates the marriage of traditional design thinking and newer, start up inspired practices. Unsurprisingly, this new best practice encourages user centred innovation. However, it is an end-to-end process that is diminished when even one part is omitted. To execute this process successfully, design thinking must pervade the entire process and users' needs must be given equal weight with business needs and social responsibilities to keep a product competitive.