Question for everyone. It seems that when we post topics related to Journey Mapping and User Stories, our audience eats these posts up.
Why do you think that is the case?
Recent post:
And User Stories
1 Like
I think itâs because product oriented people, especially on LinkedIn, care about what users think and feel.
Both of those tools are good ways to help get a pulse on that.
I could be wrong, though 
That is an interesting share. 
Always good to see what creates reactions, engagements and what doesnât. The world is unfortunately (or fortunately) a mystery so hard to say why.
One assumption Iâd make based only on the few of these I looked at is that they add something little, but valuable to something people already know (e.g. adding the cards to the journey mapping). So it both confirms what they are already doing (e.g. journey maps), sharing the link amplifies this methodology to their network, and it adds something friendly, but creative and interesting to the way of doing it (itâs kind of a snackable good tip).
Also of course that within Helioâs extended network journey maps and user stories are big at the moment.
1 Like
Iâve noticed some definite patterns. Weâve published nearly 600 posts, and Iâve written 330 on my account, so I see what tends to connect.
Iâm bringing up these two examples because, in 30 years of work, Iâve rarely seen well-executed user journeys or user stories that go beyond a single shot artifact. Same goes for user personas. So Iâm just curious, why do people gravitate to these methods?
2 Likes
Maybe itâs like the old saying: ânobody got fired for buying an IBMâ?
When we explored the patient treatment pathway (a very common âcustomer journeyâ-type model used in the pharmaceutical industry) using externally available research we never found a representation of either the product (the drug) or the pharmaceutical company as a stakeholder. Still, when we were looking at our internal journeys we were all over the place (front, left, right and center).
I think consultancies like selling journeyâs and personas because people know what they are (which reminds me, do you know who likes these stories? Is it consultants or FTEâs?), they are easy to do and there is a good business model attached to them.
Iâm as well very critical as I find they frame the perspective too much towards whatâs comfortable for the company (that is why the pharmaceutical companies use them), they are very reductionist when it comes to understanding humans and they pretend that the world is linear and what everyone cares about is moving one step further down the conversion trail (which I never found to be true).
LinkedIn is weird. A lot of people liking my content donât even read it, they just want to support. And a lot of people who tell me they really appreciate my content never like it (I assume as they donât want their own network to see them liking something that might be controversial)?
3 Likes
Yeah, agree with your sentiments.
Itâs comforting to believe something creates value, especially when others say it does too. Most of these methods, like journeys, start with good intentions.
But the bigger problem is capturing feedback loops so you can adapt to how users actually behave. Without that, it just becomes an internal exercise to get everyone on the same page, and that alignment fades quickly as things change. Itâs one of the reasons weâre arguing for UX metrics.
LinkedIn is a launching pad to connections. Thereâs an opportunity to go deeper if we try! 
1 Like
I wonder if some of the interest in user journey content stems from that sense of disastifaction that you two are discussing. People put a lot of resources into journey maps, personas, user stories, and then they donât see a lot of direct âreturn on investmentâ. I think people are often hungry for ways to salvage whatever value they can from research artifacts they already have so when you offer them an article like âCreate a better customer journeyâ, their ears perk up.
Thatâs my two cents
2 Likes
So, youâre saying people invest time in creating journey maps and personas, but often donât see the results⌠what are they hoping for?
2 Likes
I think theyâre looking for reassuranceâsome kind of âsafety netâ lense that they can use to scrutinize their new projects. To answers questions like âwhat problems does this component/page/flow/platform actually solve for our customers?â âHow will this current intitaitve respond within the greater ecosystem in which our solution lives?â
But ecosystems are living things and artifacts are just snapshots. Itâs a bit like claiming to know how a person will act because youâve flipped through their family albums.
Seems that these artifacts work best when theyâre used as primer for new researchârarely providing stand-alone value. Theyâre organizational time-savers for establishing context and documenting insights, NOT replacements for further learning.
Relying on them as a definitive guide without fresh research is how products become disconnected from their users.
1 Like
People love artifacts, and Iâve found Design, especially, has to continually justify value through process. Artifacts speak to process. Just like in a museum, artifacts are nice to point to and look at.
On the usage side of the conversation, I think they donât get used because what stakeholders value is not the actual map but proof you followed a methodology. Iâve seen so many (like hundreds) of hours spent on creating detailed journey maps. They even surfaced true and significant pain points to address. But none of them were actually addressed because folks who create maps donât actually own the topography. Those that do are too busy to prioritize. Things get lost in the deep waters of âwhoâs driving this?â
3 Likes
@vivekaleemelo, yeah agree with this:
âSeems that these artifacts work best when theyâre used as primer for new researchârarely providing stand-alone valueâ
They seem like orientation tools. But beyond that, they seem to fade away.
@Jake_Johnson Iâm curious if you think itâs follow-through on the method, or⌠trying to validate results to a leadership team (and also trying to communicate what was done).
âI think they donât get used because what stakeholders value is not the actual map but proof you followed a methodology.â
1 Like
Yes, in the sense that methodology is often proxy for results.
2 Likes
I often find, though, thatâŚThat⌠that is the problem. Teams stop there. And leaders donât push hard enough into the methods⌠but then maybe itâs a work/culture thing.
1 Like
I think thereâs a lot that goes into it. Multi-faceted like anything else. Lack of knowledge in how to actually apply the learnings, shifting and competing priorities (yesterdayâs findings are not todayâs fires), perceptions that itâs too slow, lack of clear ownership, waiting for permission, etc.
My personal experience is everything inside a corporation is pulling you and teams back to a median of regression and you have to fight really hard to push things forward.
2 Likes
Thatâs a great way to put it.
I say, people are smart, orgs are dumb. 
2 Likes
Youâre having to fight really hard but in what ways? Is that forcing ownership, getting firm buy-in from the right people, or something else?
I guess itâs more of a question is how are you fighting to move it forward? Or what drives the most success to get that forward momentum?
Genuinely curious!
Iâll take the example of the maps we did at one place I worked. We mapped the entire customer journey from top of funnel to implementation. There were ~100 known pain points identified on those maps. The poor CX owner who did the maps met over and over with functional heads and everyone said yes this is important. But none of it got prioritized. No one actually wanted to own it. That CX owner left. Then the artifact became lost. I spent two years reminding people these things existed. I bet if you mapped that journey again, much of the same ~100 pain points would still be there in one form or another. Orgs want to remove things like program management for âefficiencyâ, but honestly, thatâs the best way to get those types of inputs translated in outputs.
2 Likes
Very interesting. I would think that they might have found it âimportant,â but for some reason, it wasnât the âmost importantâ. And sometimes you have to make something the most important, at least for a week (maybe even a day). Trying to look at this from the perspective where I might be one of those team members.
OR, Iâm wondering if they didnât know how to baby-step into the problem areas. It sounds like it couldâve also been from Hickâs Law, where they freeze from having to pick which one to do first.
Based on the conversation, Iâd argue Journey Maps are popular for three reasons:
- A Learning Deliverable - Journey Maps are a great way for teams to learn across silos in a user focused way. The design artifact shows the design team was productive.
- Alignment with Teams - What you learn you convey to the rest of the internal team, and that alignment on the understanding of the customer journey is its own reward.
- Never Get It Right - Everyone has a constant feeling that theyâve done the thing wrong, and there are better ways to approach it. To @Jake_Johnsonâs point, the issue is more likely to be program management than the method itself.
Thatâs rough! 100 pain points is a big thing for someone to take ownership of, so I feel like people are less likely to own the whole flow and more likely to tackle individual pain points.
Thatâs why itâs so important to have PMs, to keep track of that whole user journey and ensure the issues are systematically taken care of. But so often that attention to the whole user journey lives and dies with the PM who picked up the torch in the first place.
1 Like