Aglet

Investigate whether teams are duplicating work

A duplicate-looking item may be a distinct scope, a different method, or a second check that should remain independent. Investigation should follow actual work products and tested conditions instead of merging from titles or shared vocabulary. Compare methods and tested conditions before deciding that two tracks answer the same question.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Trace the work products

    List experiments, code paths, decisions, customer contexts, and artifacts produced by each track. Identify shared assumptions and unique coverage, and use references rather than copying private implementation or customer detail.

  2. Compare tested conditions

    Build a small matrix of roles, inputs, versions, states, and expected outcomes each track exercised. Re-run only the comparison that determines whether the tracks answer the same question. Record the one condition that separates the tracks’ evidence before merging anything.

  3. Write the overlap brief

    State the common outcome, unique value, duplicated effort, consolidation recommendation, and evidence that would make the recommendation unsafe. Include a handoff plan that preserves useful findings and ownership. Preserve a distinct finding when it changes the outcome boundary.

What to carry forward

A useful brief proves which work is redundant, which coverage is unique, and how consolidation affects confidence. Stop when the team can merge or separate based on evidence; if comparison is incomplete, retain both tracks with a bounded check.

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