Aglet

Investigate Competing Solutions for One User Problem

Solution investigation should test alternatives against the same user outcome rather than ask which design people prefer in the abstract. Trace current and proposed journeys, compare burden, and identify assumptions each path makes. Preserve non-build options until evidence rules them out.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Model the changed journey

    For every option, record trigger, user action, system or staff handoff, recovery, outcome, and new burden. Include people who support or receive the result. Compare the option with the current path using the same task context.

  2. Test the risky assumption

    Choose a low-fidelity prototype, walkthrough, role-play, or service experiment that exposes the most consequential difference. Capture user understanding, operational feasibility, and failure recovery. Do not let a polished mockup answer a process question.

  3. Compare evidence and limits

    Review which options solved the observed barrier, introduced another burden, or require unknown infrastructure. Seek a case that favors a deferred or reused path. State the evidence needed before a final selection.

What to carry forward

The investigation brief should compare journeys, burdens, constraints, test results, and option-specific unknowns. End with a bounded recommendation or an evidence request. Avoid selecting a solution from preference when the options were not tested against the same outcome.

Technical background: IDEO 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