Aglet

Investigate Which Opportunity Matters Most

Investigation is needed when several opportunity statements sound plausible but imply different product choices. Examine the underlying situations rather than asking people to vote on labels. Compare real tasks, workarounds, and consequences, then test whether the opportunity still holds across the contexts the product intends to serve.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Follow the underlying task

    Select examples from each candidate and reconstruct what the person was trying to accomplish, what interrupted them, and what they did next. Record the sequence, not only the participant's summary. Compare the same task across user experience levels.

  2. Test the opportunity boundary

    Ask whether the reported problem appears before, during, or after the named journey stage. Look for cases where the task succeeds without the proposed solution and cases where a different constraint creates the same symptom. Keep opportunity and solution evidence separate.

  3. Weigh counterevidence

    Document examples that weaken each candidate, including groups that use a different workaround or do not experience the issue. Check recruitment, recall, and question wording for confounds. State what evidence would distinguish a need from a request for a familiar feature.

What to carry forward

The investigation brief should compare user situations, outcomes, workarounds, supporting evidence, and counterexamples for each opportunity. End with a narrowed opportunity, a merged statement, or a named research gap. Avoid declaring a winner when the candidates describe different user contexts.

Technical background: Product Talk discovery 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