Aglet

Prioritize conflicting customer feedback with clear tradeoffs

When customers want opposite behavior, a single aggregate score hides the cost of choosing. Prioritization should compare the options against affected segments, current commitments, operational burden, and reversibility. Make the tradeoff legible so the queue decision can be revisited. Make the cost of serving each segment visible before the queue ranks either outcome.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Define the alternatives

    List the smallest viable options, including preserving current behavior, supporting both through configuration, and choosing one default. For each option, state which customer outcome it serves, which it burdens, and what assumptions must be true.

  2. Compare impact and reversibility

    Estimate reach and severity by segment, then consider migration cost, support burden, and how easily the choice can be reversed. A broad low-severity inconvenience may not outweigh a narrow high-severity blocker, but the comparison must show why.

  3. Record the queue decision

    Select a next step such as investigate, prototype, schedule, or defer. Name the deciding evidence, the owner, and a revisit trigger. Keep opposing evidence linked to the item so later reviewers can see what the chosen path leaves unresolved.

What to carry forward

A sound queue decision states which option advances, why its segment impact and reversibility justify the position, and what the other segment gives up. If the tradeoff cannot be compared with available evidence, prioritize discovery of that evidence instead of a feature commitment.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow