How does this approach differ or complement design processes you’ve used before.
I think this process is something that can complement the design processes I am use to going through. Most of my background in deign process is through Stanford’s dt+x design school process. I could see this version of design being placed in the ideation step after the empathizing and defining stages have been established. Story mapping could also e added to the very front to establish ideas on a more directed goal. Often times, my projects tend to not consist of a goal until the needfinding is established. This however, leads to overly open-ended projects and story mapping seems more concise when a clear objective is outline. Due to this, I think that story mapping is not something that naturally fits with the start of the Stanford design process without an angle in. However, it can be used to concretely, solidify the users, goals, and process to build out of for the rest of the project’s lifetime. By using this method, holes from the Stanford design process can be filled and new ideas are able to be highlighted through members who are not traditionally the “idea generator.”
As I am expanding on the process though, both processes seem almost too substantial on their own to truly complement each other. Realistically speaking, they both contain many of the same element and can be flexed to become almost identical to each other in some cases. They seem to really only differ in how they arrive to the larger picture, but this is not to say that they cannot use the same elements of each other.
