Aglet

Turn Journey Map Reviews Into Better Discovery

A map review teaches the team how easily internal handoffs become mistaken for user experience. Preserve the mismatch, the evidence that exposed it, and the decision that changed. Use the case to improve mapping language and review habits without making every journey look identical.

Keep the lesson for the next incident

  1. Save the map revision

    Keep the earlier map, evidence links, real path, missing transition, and revised boundary together. Include a divergent journey that should remain separate. This allows future readers to see why a stage moved or why an apparently tidy sequence was rejected.

  2. Improve mapping practice

    Add source labels, confidence, handoff ownership, and exception paths to the mapping template. Require a path walk or evidence review before a map informs prioritization. Explain how the new convention addresses the observed false consensus.

  3. Watch for inferred stages

    Set a signal such as stages with no source, emotion labels without participant language, or internal team names presented as user steps. Assign an owner to sample maps and revisit the convention when the signal recurs.

What to carry forward

The learning record should connect the map mismatch to the revised convention and recurrence signal. State which paths are now kept separate and what uncertainty remains. A durable map practice preserves evidence and makes disagreement visible.

Technical background: GOV.UK user research guidance.

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