Journey maps
Method demonstration, not field research
The two journey maps in this section are synthesised, not researched. Mark and Zach are personas, not interview subjects. The thinking-lane quotes are plausible internal monologue at each stage, not interview transcripts. The anxiety curves are models of where I'd expect emotional load to peak.
This artifact demonstrates the structure; a real engagement would replace the specifics with interviews and field observations.
This section contains two intentionally paired journey maps through the NimbusWiz modernization pipeline.
| Page | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Mark's journey | Professional DevOps Engineer, third cycle, carrying baggage from a prior failure |
| Zach's journey | Non-technical casual user, first time, emotional stakes around a personally meaningful flight system |
| Insights | Insights from the journey maps |
Why two maps
A professional user and skilled practitioner moves through the pipeline with career-shaped stakes: being wrong in front of a manager, defending a decision, preserving a reputation.
A casual user would move through the same product with personal stakes: trusting the tool with something they love, making a decision under uncertainty, finding out whether the product treated them with respect.
What I deliberately didn't map
- Troubleshooting flows: A journey map shows the intended happy path with realistic friction. Troubleshooting is a branch off the main arc and belongs in its own artifact.
- Advisor override flows: When Mark overrides the Modernization Advisor's recommendation, he enters a different emotional cycle. That's a separate journey worth mapping, not an extension of the main one.
- Kay and Angie: Their journeys share structure with Mark's but diverge meaningfully. The right way to map them would be as shorter maps focused on the stages where each persona's experience is most distinct, not as full pipeline re-runs.