Thanks for the article, interesting stuff.
This way of thinking always gets to me, because while it acknowledges that we’re now entering uncharted territory (that’s why we need to research), we can still apply a linear approach. A starting point and an end point. I don’t think I ever did a project that actually played out like that.
The longer time you spend on the first stage without diving into actual ideation and prototyping, the bigger expectation gap you’ll find between you and the stakeholders (I’m assuming this isn’t just for personal projects). “But you’ve researched for so long, how come you don’t know shit anyway?” or “Oh that’s what you’ve been talking about for so long, then no, we actually can’t supply the data”
If you only spend a short time on it, because you’ve experienced above scenario too many times, you’ll use the ideation/prototyping stages to do the actual research, just extending the iterative build phase ending up with the same effort. And now we’re slowly getting to my point..
That’s the only thing I really believe in to work — prototyping from day one. (Ok, day 2 then, just after the brief)
All the stages you’re mentioning are absolutely legit, I would just apply showing sketches or prototypes along with all of it. It will help the design team getting ideas on paper, build common ground. It will help stakeholders understand what the design team actually means when they talk about “democratizing filesharing” or likewise mumbo-jumbo. Lastly, it will get you faster to building disposable working prototypes — which I actually think is missing here. Developers need iterations too. And the design team needs to be able to navigate around unforseen technical constraints etc. Bah, you know it all. I liked the article, it made me think.