ACCORDING TO RESEARCH, THE TOP REASON start-ups fail is that they offer a product or service that nobody wants. Put simply, they have come up with an idea that is viable, but it is not desirable. To establish whether an idea is both viable and desirable, you must engage in a specific type of experimentation.
The tightrope of experimentation combines two seemingly contradictory qualities: total focus and total flexibility. By contrast, most conventional experimenters are single-mindedly focused on validating their idea. Typically, a scientist, inventor or entrepreneur develops a hypothesis and then sets out to prove it through experimentation.
This emphasis on validation is rooted in the scientific method, which is often held up as the ideal of experimentation. Valid scientific protocols are based on formulating a hypotheses, testing it (with treatment and control groups), analyzing the results, and drawing valid conclusions. Although these protocols help you move away from unscientific gut instincts in search of valid evidence, too much focus on validation can stifle the flexibility and open-mindedness that is required for successful innovation.
The purpose of experimentation should always be twofold: to test an assumption and learn from the testing, so you can decide whether to persevere, pivot — or pull out. Unfortunately, the traditional emphasis on validation often crowds out robust investigation. In this article we will show how important it is to commit to experimenting to improve, rather than experimenting to prove.
False Experiments and Extreme Experimentation
When your aim is to validate a hypothesis, you are unconsciously drawn into a logic of supporting what you already believe to be true, rather than seeking objective answers. Instead of exploring uncharted
