Aglet

Investigate Which Research Question Unlocks Learning

Questions can appear equally important until their consequences and methods are made explicit. Investigate the backlog by asking what each answer would change, what evidence would count, and whether another question is a prerequisite. Remove duplication without erasing legitimate differences in user context.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Trace question dependencies

    Map each question to an assumption, user situation, decision, and downstream question. Identify where two questions share an evidence source or where one depends on understanding the current workflow first. Record the dependency rather than combining unrelated unknowns.

  2. Test evidence fit

    For a disputed question, draft a neutral observation, interview prompt, task, or comparison that could answer it. Check whether the method captures behavior or only stated preference. Run a small pilot when wording or interpretation risk could invalidate a full round.

  3. Compare alternatives

    Ask whether reframing the question, splitting a segment, or using an existing source would produce a clearer answer. Keep a rejected formulation and the reason. If no method can answer it now, state the missing prerequisite instead of forcing a priority.

What to carry forward

The investigation brief should show question dependencies, evidence fit, pilot results, and competing formulations. End with a sharper question, a merged queue item, or a named prerequisite. Do not call a question high priority when its answer would not change a decision.

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