Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Within product and design, this request uses research, support interactions and process data to produce a journey map with friction points. Both belong in the submission before any policy route is trusted.
- 1Task and owner
- Service designer wants to map a customer journey. The request needs an accountable owner for a journey map with friction points, even when the tool prepares most of the first draft.
- 2Information involved
- Research, support interactions and process data. The classification must cover what the tool can retrieve as well as what the requester types.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. The request should identify the exact account because product-level approval leaves important controls unknown.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is a journey map with friction points. Its destination matters: private working material creates a different consequence from a sent, published or automated result.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Combining sources can reveal more about a customer than each source alone. This is the fact most likely to move the request from routine handling into review.
- 6Human review
- service design and privacy owners should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. Their role should include checking source facts, correcting errors and refusing the proposed use.
Possible policy routes
The task name alone cannot decide it.
A published workplace policy can return different answers for the same task. These are the practical branches worth encoding.
A routine policy route may be possible
A routine route is easier to justify when the exact account is approved, only the minimum customer research and usage information is used, a journey map with friction points remains within the stated purpose, and service design and privacy owners reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
The request moves beyond routine handling when the account or data handling is uncertain, combining sources can reveal more about a customer than each source alone, or a journey map with friction points reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
A stop or redesign route becomes relevant if restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before service design and privacy owners can intervene, or use representative, de-identified evidence and document source limitations cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Will map a customer journey run inside the approved company environment from start to finish?
- 02
Who is permitted to expose research, support interactions and process data to this tool and for this purpose?
- 03
Could someone treat a journey map with friction points as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Does service design and privacy owners have enough authority and time to stop the result?
- 05
Is this genuinely one request, or will repeated use turn it into an embedded process?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- service designer
- task
- Use AI to map a customer journey.
- information
- research, support interactions and process data
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Internal work
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- service design and privacy owners
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Use representative, de-identified evidence and document source limitations
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for a journey map with friction points.
- ✓
Treat a new purpose, region, data source or recipient as a new request rather than silently extending this one.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted a journey map with friction points, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to map a customer journey automatically allowed?
The task name cannot settle the answer. Apply the company’s published rules to research, support interactions and process data, the exact account, a journey map with friction points, its audience and the proposed review.
How specific should the workplace AI request be?
Describe a journey map with friction points, identify research, support interactions and process data, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how service design and privacy owners will review it.
How should a later reviewer understand this decision?
Preserve who accepted a journey map with friction points, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying research, support interactions and process data would create unnecessary risk.