Correct. And runs in parallel.
I don’t care much for the narrow focus of the list of 8. It also implies an equal weight, which is completely incorrect.
I see the process as 3 steps that do have a relatively equal weight.
- Discovery - What is going on with the customer/market?
- Strategy - What are we going to do about it.
- Implementation - Get it done.
As for OP, his #1 falls into discovery. But discovery also includes exploratory, directional and confirmatory research. It should be happening at all times, while you are doing the strategy and implementation. As they are done at all times too. Makes for a hectic process 
.
The OP’s #2 sort of falls into my #2, but it is really a tool to be used in my #3. Strategy is really defining the problem. The customer cannot define the problem, they can only say what is their current practice. They may say my horse eats and craps 10 pounds a day, does not like the cold and takes 2 hours to get to town. Strategy defines the problem as the customer needs less maintenance, less cost and greater efficiency.
The OP’s #2-8 falls into #3, solving the problem, but again, leaves out so much. What’s the business case? How to manufacture? Does it fall withing the company’s brand identity? etc. Implementation solves the problem created by strategy as a car, a “better” horse.
Honestly, I see the process outlined in the OP as a styling method. Which is a very small part of implementation. Most of what we do day-to-day is in implementation, but you cannot be walled off from discovery and strategy. If you are walled off, you stand little chance of being innovative.