Aglet

Investigate the Problem Behind a Feature Request

Investigation should reveal the problem a feature request is trying to solve and the constraints that shape it. Follow the task through its real context, compare successful and failed paths, and ask whether the named feature addresses the first break or only a visible symptom.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Reconstruct the current journey

    Choose recent cases and record trigger, actions, tools, handoffs, delays, workaround, and outcome. Compare the request wording with what people actually do. Preserve differences between a user performing the task and a staff member supporting it.

  2. Compare competing problem frames

    Test whether the difficulty comes from discoverability, missing information, policy, timing, trust, access, or coordination. Use observations and participant explanations to distinguish them. Do not let the existence of a familiar feature stand in for evidence about the cause.

  3. Check the proposed solution

    Ask which part of the frame the requested feature would change and which constraints it leaves untouched. Look for cases where the same outcome is blocked differently. State what additional evidence would justify narrowing, reframing, or retaining the request.

What to carry forward

The investigation brief should show the current journey, paired cases, candidate frames, constraints, and relationship to the requested feature. End with a bounded problem statement or an evidence request. Avoid calling the feature necessary when the same symptom has several plausible causes.

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