Aglet

Triage an Evidence-Based Journey Map

Journey maps become misleading when their polished stages reflect team assumptions more than user experience. Triage the map by identifying whose journey it represents, what each stage means, and which details are observed. Preserve disagreement between paths instead of averaging it away.

Establish what is happening

  1. Name the journey frame

    Record the user, trigger, desired outcome, start and end points, and channel or service boundary. Identify whether the map covers one path or several. Remove stages that describe internal team structure rather than a user experience.

  2. Trace source evidence

    Link each stage to observation, interview, support, analytics, or a stated assumption. Mark waits, handoffs, emotions, and recovery points by source type. Note stages that have no direct evidence or rely on a single participant.

  3. Mark map uncertainty

    Highlight disputed stages, missing paths, and boundaries between user and service operations. Record the decision the map can support now and the question requiring another study. Keep the visual from implying certainty the evidence does not have.

What to carry forward

The triage output is a bounded map with journey frame, source links, uncertain stages, and open questions. Stop when a reviewer can tell what the map represents. Keep inferred stages provisional until relevant paths are observed or corroborated.

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