Aglet

Prioritize high-volume, low-impact customer feedback fairly

Frequent minor friction deserves a visible decision, but raw count can crowd out rare severe issues. Prioritization should compare normalized reach and cumulative effort with harm, urgency, confidence, and the cost of delaying other work. State why the item is scheduled, improved, or deferred.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Translate volume into reach

    Use distinct affected accounts and workflow frequency when available, then explain the limits of those measures. A large number of retries may indicate confusion rather than many customers. Keep submission count as a clue and avoid treating it as unique demand.

  2. Compare cumulative cost

    Estimate the repeated effort or abandonment created by the friction, using representative workflows and explicit assumptions. Compare that cumulative cost with severe but lower-frequency queue items without reducing either to a single unsupported score.

  3. Make the tradeoff visible

    Set a queue position and choose a proportionate response such as copy improvement, workflow refinement, instrumentation, or a larger fix. Record what evidence would justify escalation and when the decision should be revisited.

What to carry forward

A defensible decision shows normalized reach, per-workflow cost, severity, confidence, and opportunity cost. Stop when a reviewer can understand why the item is not first and what would change its position; preserve a review trigger for rising harm or failed workarounds.

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