A design process must not be a straight-jacket on creativity. On the other hand, creativity in design needs to have some form of validation; otherwise it reduces its own ability to create new opportunities.

This simple cycle is inclusive of multiple design tactics but is rigorous in how it judges the results of any design. The designer/s can enter into the cycle at any point.

If you have a great idea, start by making it.
If you need to define a problem, start by thinking and analysis.
If you already have a product or service, try critiquing it.

The most important next step is to go to the next point in the cycle.

In the design industry, many designers / product owners only go through this cycle once and then bounce between “making” and “critiquing.” This can easily turn in to a vicious cycle of iterating on tactical designs that do not really address the problem. Often, in this “bounce” the process lacks a  critical piece of thinking or analysis which might unlock the true nature of the problem.

At every point of the design process it is critical to reconsider, or query, the problem, checking in to see that you are designing for the right problem.

Following the cycle is not easy. It requires you to question opinions you have formed in the course of a project which can be hard to let go of. These opinions or decisions may have been hard fought victories with other project team members / clients  and seem irreversible; but nothing is irreversible if the problem itself has changed through your considered process of thinking and analysis.

This process happens at every stage of a project from concept to production and brings fresh insight to every step.

An important principle in designing anything is trying to understand what the function and purpose are for something, and how these are different.

What is it that someone is trying to do? This is the function.
What is someone trying to achieve? This is the purpose.

A simple example,
Function = I want to make some tea
Purpose  = I need hot water, I need a tea bag and I need a container for two things to come together.

“A kettle” may seem the obvious answer to this riddle. Yet, there are myriad ways in which the purpose can be met without using a kettle.

[Example] A cup which on contact with water starts a chemical reaction which heats the water.
[Example] Boiling water and a tea bag in a cooking pot.

The question is: Are there new ways of satisfying the purpose, which work better than a kettle and a cup?

Stating the problem in this way allows designers to think about a problem conceptually and allows them to think critically about current conventions and while allowing them to see the atomic elements of the problem.

The purpose can also be broken down into sub-purposes, giving us a more granular way to look at a problem.

Thinking about how purpose can be broken down also allows you to think about the best possible outcomes for each given purpose.

The best outcomes for a given purpose or sub-purpose can also be validation tools that allow you to:
- measure the success of a design concept
- have a uniform way of comparing your design idea against other existing design solutions.

If your design solution allows for a much better outcome to a purpose, this is the starting point of creating a design which really innovates and does not just incrementally iterate on a problem space.

An excellent book which uses similar principles is “What Customers Want: Using Outcome-Driven Innovation to Create Breakthrough Products and Services” by Anthony Ulwick. This book concentrates on product design, but I think this process and way of thinking can be applied to products which are much more conceptual, as well as in identifying whole new markets of opportunity for innovation.

- Kaushik