Thanks for contributing to the community. If I’m getting this right, the main difference is running discovery and ideation in parallel. Maybe this could work if you have resources to do it, at least one person on each task, otherwise you’re running the risk of loosing focus jumping between very different activities (insights gathering, analytical thinking vs ideas gathering, creative thinking). But even so, if you want to run these activities in parallel I can’t see how you won’t end up with a lot of idea generation that offers solutions to the wrong problems.
If you haven’t defined the problem space and confirmed this before you start to solutionise (love that word) you’ll end up designing for a moving target. Now, that might work in a very open-ended brief but for most projects I’m taking part in, resources are sparse and the client wants a solution for a specific problem. We know that our assumptions around that problem are true because they’ve been verified in the discovery phase.
How does this work in your projects? How do you apply this approach without focusing on potentially wrong problems? Maybe your process can be applied to certain project types? Some real world examples would be great.