Bike shedding in journey management: why we love debating the small stuff

Sérgio Tavares, ph.D.
Oct 2, 2024
4 min read

Updated: Dec 15, 2024

In my experience with journey management, I've often seen people focus on minutiae—things like whether a process is truly linear, or if customers loop back and forth before committing. Then there's the endless debate on how to name the phases of the journey, or how many steps to include. It's easy to get sucked into these discussions, and I’ve watched teams spend hours going back and forth, only to arrive at the same destination: moving the customer forward by exceeding expectations. These kinds of debates aren't new, and they’re a classic example of what’s called "bike shedding."

Why it matters

Focusing on trivial issues (like the color of the bike shed) distracts us from tackling the complex challenges that actually drive results.

Bike shedding, or Parkinson’s Law of Triviality, is a cognitive bias where people give disproportionate attention to simple, low-stakes tasks rather than the more difficult, high-impact ones. The reason? It’s easier to debate small things like what to call a phase in the customer journey than to confront the deeper issues that require effort, creativity, and problem-solving. It feels productive. And that’s why it’s dangerous.

This is particularly common in journey management. We spend too much time on granular details like renaming journey stages, when the goal should always be to improve customer experience and solve their problems. Does renaming a phase from “Evaluation” to “Consideration” really help the customer decide faster? Probably not. Does debating whether the journey is linear or cyclical make customers feel understood? Doubtful. Instead, the focus should be on meeting or exceeding customer expectations—because, in the end, that’s what moves the needle.

Bikeshedding:

"Should we say finding a provider or getting a provider? Contact for help, or reaching out? Setup or settings?"

Reasoning: why bike shedding happens in journey management

Simplicity feels safe: People instinctively cling to simple problems because they’re manageable and familiar. It’s much easier to discuss how many stages the journey should have than to address the messy, real-world issues customers face. Simple topics also give everyone a chance to weigh in, regardless of their expertise.
Big problems are intimidating: Tackling complex, systemic issues—like how to meaningfully improve customer satisfaction—requires cross-functional collaboration, creativity, and a high tolerance for ambiguity. It’s easier to push that off in favor of small, concrete discussions.
Perceived contribution: In meetings, people want to feel heard, and discussing small details gives everyone a chance to chime in, even if the topic itself isn’t all that consequential.

A data point on bias in decision-making

In 1957, Cyril Northcote Parkinson, a British historian, coined Parkinson’s Law of Triviality based on a humorous observation that a committee would spend more time discussing a bike shed for employees than they would on a nuclear plant, which is far more complex. The same behavior is rampant in journey management today. We end up debating endlessly over inconsequential issues—naming journey phases, debating whether processes are linear or circular—while avoiding the harder but more impactful discussions on how to truly optimize the customer experience.

My POV: journey management and bike shedding in action

I’ve seen this firsthand in a journey mapping workshop for a retail client. The team spent almost an entire session debating whether to call one phase “Decision” or “Purchase.” Meanwhile, the real challenge—figuring out why customers were dropping off at the checkout stage—was barely touched upon. Ironically, the debate over semantics didn’t solve anything. At the end of the day, regardless of what we called the phase, the issue remained: how do we get customers to actually complete their purchases?

The solution didn’t come from renaming or redefining steps. It came from rethinking the checkout process and removing friction points. By simplifying payment options and offering real-time support, we improved the experience and boosted conversion rates. That’s what matters—not the label we give the process.

What to do instead: focusing on outcomes

To avoid bike shedding, journey management should focus on outcomes, not labels or overly simplistic details. Here’s how to shift the conversation:

Prioritize impact over simplicity: Ask yourself, "Will this debate directly improve customer satisfaction?" If the answer is no, move on.
Engage with complexity: Don’t shy away from the more challenging, high-impact discussions about improving the overall experience. Dive into what really matters—like solving pain points and addressing customer needs.
Facilitate smarter discussions: Lead teams with a focus on what drives value. If the conversation veers into bike-shedding territory, refocus by asking, "How does this help move the customer forward?"

The big takeaway

Bike shedding is a distraction. It feels productive, but it’s a time-sink that diverts attention from the bigger, more impactful work. In journey management, the goal is always to meet or exceed customer expectations—anything less is just noise.

Key takeaways

Bike shedding wastes time on trivial issues, distracting teams from solving real problems.
Focusing on labels and micro-details of customer journeys often leads to endless debate with little result.
What matters is improving the customer experience and solving the real challenges they face, not what we call the stages of the journey.
Avoid getting trapped in low-stakes conversations. Focus on the larger, more complex challenges that will deliver real value.
Facilitating smarter discussions is key to breaking free of bike shedding and getting to the heart of customer journey improvement.

Lutav.co