I just did a LinkedIn post picking up on this story, triggered by comments by (of course) Peter Jones (here: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A6795377460289552385/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A6794267881786896384%2C6795377440865746944%29), around the origins of the Design Council’s ‘double diamond’.
(NB Peter also comments on their new version, dubbed ‘The Systemic Design Framework’, here: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A6795386355506561024/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A6794016102427963392%2C6795386297960710144%29)
Please see the post first:
I’m picking this up because it seems there’s no malice or ill-will or allegations around this (unlike other examples – see this stinging review of Wolfram’s work, recently posted here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antlerboy_doublediamond-designthinking-servicedesign-activity-6795601313569882112-pEL_
And because intellectual history seems to be important to me, and I’m aware of how hard this can be!
Disclaimer: while I *constantly* work with the ideas of others – and try to credit them, always aware there’s a line between ‘their idea’, ‘my interpretation of their idea’, ‘my idea influenced by this and this’, and ‘my idea which is importantly distinct from this part of intellectual history…
View original post 3,420 more words