Your journey map is a hypothesis.
It shows the journey you intend. Whether customers can actually take it depends on a dozen documents nobody has walked together. Subjourney tests the hypothesis before your customers do.
Journey maps get presented. They rarely get tested.
A map is built in a workshop, signed off, and pinned to a wall. Meanwhile the real journey is defined by form copy, scripts, policies and templates, each owned by a different team, each changing on its own schedule.
The map and the service drift apart, and nobody notices until a customer falls through the gap.
How it works.
- 01Import the map and the docs behind it.Every touchpoint's source material.
- 02Run customers through it.Simulated personas walk each stage and channel.
- 03See where it breaks.Every stall names the touchpoint and the document responsible.
A journey map vs a journey run.
| Journey map | Journey run | |
|---|---|---|
| Shows | The intended experience | What the docs actually allow |
| Edge cases | A persona slide | A persona that walks every step |
| Cross-team gaps | Hidden between lanes | Named, with the doc on each side |
| After a change | Map goes stale | Re-run shows what broke |
Shows
- Journey map
- The intended experience
- Journey run
- What the docs actually allow
Edge cases
- Journey map
- A persona slide
- Journey run
- A persona that walks every step
Cross-team gaps
- Journey map
- Hidden between lanes
- Journey run
- Named, with the doc on each side
After a change
- Journey map
- Map goes stale
- Journey run
- Re-run shows what broke
“Our map is already validated with research.”
Good. Research validates the need. A run validates that your docs deliver it, and keeps validating every time a doc changes.