Protocol: Triple Diamond method for problem solving and design thinking. Rubric validation

There is a set of tools that we can use to improve the results of each of the phases that continuous improvement projects must go through (8D, PDCA, DMAIC, Double diamond, etc.). These methods use divergent techniques, which help generate multiple alternatives, and convergent techniques that help analyze and filter the generated options. However, the tools used in all those frameworks are often very similar. Our goal, in this research, is to develop a comprehensive model that allows it to be used both for problem-solving and for taking advantage of opportunities. This protocol defines the main terms related to our research, makes a framework proposal, proposes a rubric that identifies observable milestones at each stage of the model and proposes the action plan to validate this rubric and the model in a given context. The action plan will be implemented in a future research.


Introduction
Previous research has identified a set of tools that we can use to improve the results of each of the phases that continuous improvement projects must go through (Tschimmel, 2012). As processes/problems become more complex, more structured methods are needed to support these phases, from identifying the problem to creating an action plan. These methods use divergent techniques, which help generate multiple alternatives, and convergent techniques that help analyze and filter the generated options (Clune & Lockrey, 2014;Smalley, 2018). Some of the most cited methods are 8D (Al-Mashari et al., 2005;Camarillo et al., 2018;Gangidi, 2019;Realyvasquez-Vargas et al., 2020), PDCA (Alsyouf et al., 2011;Matsuo & Nakahara, 2013;Nascimento et al., 2019;Nedra et al., 2019;Pinto & Mendes, 2017;Rafferty, 2009;Song & Fischer, 2020; To cite this article: Marin-Garcia, Juan A; Garcia-Sabater, Julio J.; Garcia-Sabater, Jose P.; Maheut, Julien (2020). In both situations, a process of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation needs to be initiated (Design Council, 2007). To do this, different frameworks have been proposed to help in the process. Let us go over some of the main ones. We will start with those who use a single cycle of the process, which are best suited for situations with clear problems. We will continue with those that propose two consecutive cycles and that usually adapt well to design processes or when the problems are not clearly defined or understood at first. From them, we will concrete our proposal of three linked cycles.
The most basic models propose a process that goes through five stages: defining the problem, analyzing the problem, proposing solutions, evaluating the proposed solutions and, choosing a solution to be implemented (Smalley, 2018). Within this approach, we can place frameworks that modify the number of stages by dividing some of the original stages (Smalley, 2018). For example, there is a 6-stage model (defining the problem, setting the goal, identifying root causes, launching countermeasures, checking results, and standardizing) that became popular around 1960 and which ended up leading to Team Oriented Problem Solving (8D) in 1980. In 8D, a stage is added at the beginning to create the team that will work on the problem, and another is added at the end to recognize the team (Realyvasquez-Vargas et al., 2020;Smalley, 2018). DMAIC framework (define, measure quantitatively, analyze/determine causes, improve -reduce causes-, control) became popular a decade later with the six sigma movement, and returns to the 5 stages, but opens the range of application not only to specific problems but also to more ambiguous situations, such as setting goals or satisfying customer requirements (de Mast & Lokkerbol, 2012;Gangidi, 2019;Sunder, 2016). This puts the DMAIC at an intermediate point between the two types of situations (explicit problem vs ambiguous problem) that we have discussed. However, the purely quantitative approach makes it not a pure tool for the second type of problems.
To deal with ambiguous problems, other frameworks have been proposed since 2000. In its simplest versions, three stages are proposed, as in the 3I model (inspiration, ideation, implementation) (IDEO.org, 2012;Tschimmel, 2012;Vernon et al., 2016). The first phase involves identifying the problem or opportunity to work on and a preliminary data collection to know the current state of the situation. The ideation phase is based on the synthesis/integration of the collected data and the generation of possible alternatives. The implementation phase begins with the selection of the best proposals, followed by the creation of an action plan, implementation, and verification of the results. Normally the stages of the third phase are done iteratively testing solutions until you find one that satisfies the team. This three-stage framework has undergone an evolution in which 6 stages are set that make explicit the steps of the original 3I model (Tschimmel, 2012): understand, observe, point of view, ideate, prototype and test. The initial framework proposed by the Design Council had many things in common with 3I, but it was realized in 5 stages (Design Council, 2007;Smalley, 2018): define the problem, understand the problem, think about the problem, develop an idea, detail a design, and test. They subsequently evolved in 2005 into the double diamond framework (Clune & Lockrey, 2014;Design Council, 2007;Senapathi & Drury-Grogan;Tschimmel, 2012), based on 4 phases: discover, define, develop, deliver. The main contribution of this framework is that it alternates divergent phases (discover and develop) with converged phases (define and deliver).
Given the similarities between the different frameworks, it seems clear that, whatever the situation, the first step should always be to select the problem on which to work and define it explicitly and clearly. Subsequently, we will have to understand the problem and select what are the main criteria that will allow us to Protocol: Triple Diamond method for problem solving and design thinking. Rubric validation Juan A. Marin-Garcia, Julio J. Garcia-Sabater, Jose P. Julien Maheut WPOM, 52 identify if we have achieved a satisfactory result. Finally, we will have to find a way to meet those criteria. Each of these three large blocks of work consists of divergent thinking thought activities, followed by convergent thinking and finished with an explicit statement that serves as input for the next block. At the end of the process, the explicit statement takes shape in an action plan.  Summarizing all of the above, we propose the triple diamond framework (Figure 1) as an extension and adaptation of the double diamond proposed by the British Design Council (Clune & Lockrey, 2014;Design Council, 2007;Tschimmel, 2012). For this proposal we have integrated ideas present in 3I, DMAIC, and 8D (Cheng & Chang, 2012;Doran, 1981;Scholtes et al., 2003;Shahin & Mahbod, 2007;Suarez-Barraza & Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 2015;Tapping, 2008;Tschimmel, 2012): 1. Explore/discovery: the first triple diamond part represents the improvement project's initial divergent part. This is an exploratory/discovery phase. Here the improvement team will seek possible areas or themes on which to work. It is a matter of identifying possible issues/concerns (problems or opportunities) related to the set improvement focus. 2. Choose challenge: the first diamond's second part is a converging task in which the issues identified in the previous phase are prioritized using a clearly explicit criterion. As a result, a limited number of issues are selected. These will be dealt with by the improvement team. Other issues will be ruled out or recorded and kept until priorities are re-assessed. 3. Define: this step closes the first diamond and helps the second diamond to start. It consists in clearly defining and specifying all the selected issues on which later work is done. If the work team is dealing with problems, using techniques like "Is/Is not matrix" can be very useful for defining problems clearly and explicitly. This technique also helps to summarize the available information and make any gaps that need to be overcome in the next step emerge. If opportunities are being dealt with, only their generalist description can be made in this phase. This is done by clarifying objectives and linking them to the expected outcomes by describing the current situation, plus other aspects to consider, e.g., establishing the desired tasks, requirements, or characteristics. Hence the group will obtain a framework with which to prepare proposals. 4. Understand: this step opens the second diamond's first phase, which is once again a divergent phase when the information available for all the selected issues is collected. It will often be necessary to collect new information to bridge the gaps to define the issue. To do so, feedback between the Definition and the Understand steps frequently occurs as the definition of the issue is completed or specified. Moreover, new information requirements may appear to complete the understanding of the issue. If the work team is dealing with problems, it should explore the root causes of each problem and not only focus on signs. When the focus is opportunities, perhaps using qualitative techniques, like observation, interviews, or empathy maps, is recommendable to draw up a list of different user requirements. 5. Focus: the second diamond ends with a converging task in which the causes, or requirements, to be worked on in the third diamond are selected using a set of criteria. This selection must be based on the data collected in the "Understand" step. Successful selection depends, to a great extent, on the scope, or cover of the maximum quantity of possible causes/ requirements, the different point of view of related stakeholders, and on the quality of the collected information 6. Target definition: this step closes the second diamond and it clearly and specifically describes the goals so that they are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART); or the requirements that the team wants to achieve with the solutions that will be proposed in the next phases. It must also define the criteria by which the alternatives generated in the 7th phase will be selected. These criteria must be aligned with the goals/requirements that are intended to be achieved. Using storytelling tools may help in this phase, given their visual/graphic format, to create a representation of the series of problems/opportunities shared by everyone in the group. 7. Develop: a new divergent step starts with the third diamond. Here many alternatives are generated for each of the selected reasons that act as a focus to base the group's creativity on. All previous efforts made are catalyzed in this phase and projected toward proposing possible solutions. Some alternatives will simply be intuition, and others may be impossible ideas, but act as a lever to create new ideas. Some alternatives may be directly applied as solutions. The most important point in this step is to open as many possibilities as possible without worrying if they are feasible. Deferred judgment techniques (e.g., any of the five brainstorming versions or lateral thinking) or techniques for the systematic opening of alternatives, like the "morphological matrix" or the "concept fan", are very suitable in this phase. 8. Design & filter: the converging part of the third diamond begins by filtering the alternatives in the previous step. To do so, the team applies the criteria, requirements or desired characteristics established in the "Target definition" phase. With the filtered alternatives, a series of solutions is put forward, which may appear from a combination of several, or by improving, or modeling original ideas, e.g., enhancing positive aspects or cushioning negative ones. Using prototypes or pilot trials may considerably help in this phase. plan contemplates all the steps from launching, implementation, verifying outcomes and modifications (if necessary), to standardization and diffusing the solution. This action plan can be wellestablished in a "business case" that explicitly mentions required investments, the return expected from them, staff training, and risk management

Research objectives
The objectives of this research are: 1. To propose a framework that integrates the stages for problem-solving and taking advantage of opportunities (proposal included in this paper) 2. To validate a rubric to verify the degree to which each stage of the model has been covered (future research applying this protocol)

Expected contribution
Our proposal offers a framework that can be applied in different contexts where it is intended to innovate, either continuously (individually or through improvement groups) or even radically. Whether innovation has to do with solving a problem or seizing an opportunity (Clune & Lockrey, 2014;Smalley, 2018).
In addition, we believe that the rubric can encourage the application of the framework, facilitating the training of the people involved and guiding on the tasks to be carried out at each stage (Vernon et al., 2016).
Finally, this protocol allows other researchers to replicate the validation of the rubric or the model, and extend it to other contexts (Clune & Lockrey, 2014;Smalley, 2018).

Methodology
To check if the framework is viable and fulfills the function for which it is designed, we have created a rubric (table1 for the English version, annex 1 for the Spanish version) that we will apply in two different situations.
• Situation A: Students will be asked a case that represents an explicit problem-solving situation (Garcia-Sabater, 2020) • Situation B: A case will be raised that represents a situation with an ambiguous problem, where something new needs to be designed to seize an opportunity (Marin-Garcia, 2020) We will check if different raters (different teachers or different students) converge on the grades awarded with the rubric. In addition, we will see if the rubric is able to discriminate the process of teamwork, by comparing the triple diamond rubric results with the results of applying a rubric designed to plot problemsolving processes based on the 8D framework (Annex 2 for the English version and Annex 3 for the Spanish version). Finally, we will analyze the experience of participants through their answer to an open question survey about the usefulness of the triple diamond by comparing it to its way of solving problems before knowing the triple diamond framework.
The data will be obtained with master's and MOOC (Massive Online Open Courses) students, to fit a profile of people with some work experience (even if it was in internship contracts). The selection process is coherent.

Define
Not clear about what to deal with or the problem /opportunity to be solved. Unsuitable description of the company's initial situation (its problems and context) and/or the area or process to deal with. Information is confusing or too superficial. No advantages or expected results are discussed. The indicators to be taken to evaluate the results or criteria to be followed to choose among alternatives are neither mentioned nor justified  The description of the situation has been left to one side and there are some gaps (but it can be more or less understood). What is to be accomplished is known, but it is not properly specified or how this will be done is not clear

Workplan
In Table 2 we present the workplan to complete the research.  Se abren múltiples temas, considerando el problema y la realidad de la organización ("p" es mucho mayor que "r") 02 Choose Challenge

Deliver
No hay evidencia de haber creado un plan de acción con la programación de actividades, o se presenta algo, que pretende ser un plan de acción, pero no lo es. Superficial y/o con errores o grandes lagunas. No existe discusión de otras posibles vías de acción y los resultados que se podrían obtener con ellas, o no se exponen las limitaciones de la solución elegida o los datos tomados para el análisis. No queda claro cómo ha quedado el problema. No se demuestra que se hayan cumplido los objetivos  El plan de acción presentado no es técnicamente perfecto. Se comparan los resultados obtenidos con la situación inicial, pero las explicaciones alternativas a resultados no previstos o las limitaciones no están del todo bien acabadas. No se comentan las inversiones, recursos necesarios, formación para la implementación o los resultados esperados de la misma. No hay un plan de riesgos.
 Hay un plan de acción compatible con el enfoque PDCA. Incluye tareas, responsables, fechas, qué se medirá para saber si la tarea está completada, presupuesto y actividades de formación. Se contrastan los resultados obtenidos con la situación inicial. Hay explicaciones alternativas para los resultados no esperados y se indican las limitaciones. Existe un plan de riesgos y una estimación de costes y retorno de la inversión The presented diagram/matrix is technically perfect (without assessing data, but how it was built)

07-Generate alternatives of solutions
There is no evidence that brainstorming or any lateral thinking technique to create ideas have been done.
Barely any alternatives of the solution (2-5) There are a moderate number of alternatives of the solution (6-15), and most are obvious or conventional solutions There are many alternatives of the solution (more than 15) and most are obvious or conventional Se muestra que se ha usado el voto múltiple o Idea-Rating-Sheets pero de manera confusa o con documentos ilegibles o poco cuidados Se muestra que se ha usado el voto múltiple o Idea-Rating-Sheets de manera correcta Se muestra que se ha usado el voto múltiple o Idea-Rating-Sheets de manera excepcional (muy completa, con muchos participantes que representan a todos los implicados, bien documentada ...) 10-Modelado de ideas No hay evidencia de haber modelado/combinado/potenciado ideas el modelado de ideas se hace sin un criterio o metodología clara se justifica adecuadamente que no es necesario, o se ha usado la información de voto múltiple, Idea-Rating-Sheets u otras etapas del proceso para modelar las ideas.