Experimentation-as-a-Strategy

There is a paradox at play in the world of high-stakes dining. Upstart chefs, scrappy and scrupulous, put gridle to flame and test untamed recipes without fanfare or fandom. Their likely vehicle may be a food truck or a hole-in-the-wall outpost where a bodega once stood. Every calculation focuses on inventing or improving interactions customers have with a dish. Every detail is instructive, beyond money in the till. Lessons learnt, visible in kitchen burns, blisters, scrapes and scars are data points in an elaborate experiment. A select few eventually shut down their fledgling foray and make the commitment and investment required for a far more ambitious venture – going from “pop-up to permanent”. 

Here’s the thing. If you think experimenting your way forward is a frugal tactic associated with someone starting out, consider the improbable path taken by Copenhagen chef René Redzepi. His three Michelin-starred restaurant Noma has been voted "best restaurant in the world" in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 and again, in 2021. Last year, René announced Noma would be shutting down operations to become “a full-time food laboratory, developing new dishes and products for its e-commerce operation, Noma Projects.” 

The journey from pop-up to permanent for restaurants may seem an unlikely parable for anyone wanting to parlay their passion into a project with potential. Yet, experimenting your way to success is a means to strip impulsive ideas of hype and hyperbole, reduce risk and raise the likelihood of reward. 

The literature on experimentation at work is plentiful. The more instructive dissertations put a spotlight on a scientific approach, emphasizing starting with a hypothesis, taking action and observing outcomes. Pulling different levers or manipulating inputs alters the course of the experiment, leading to intended and unintended consequences. Successful experiments enable us to extrapolate results to guide future effort and investment. 

In my experience standing up innovation practices, I have observed a selective embrace of the prevailing theory and talking points on Experimentation, which dilutes its impact. Here are some thoughts on how to address the more egregious of these pitfalls.

Hypotheticals or Hypotheses

Imagine using a prototype to showcase an idea, light on evidence of the real-world value and consequence to your target audience. Their reaction will be equivalent to an unobjectionable shrug, positive enough but hardly a ringing endorsement for future investment. This is a consequence of showing a hypothetical scenario, as opposed to testing a scientific hypothesis. The latter is designed to elicit responses to more than “Do you like this?” and go deeper to determine “What do you like about it? Can we improve it? How much are you willing to pay?”

Scale or Sink

It is often assumed growing pains kill the best new ideas once they are implemented, whether you’re a start-up or a large organization. However, in my experience, it is failure to plan the transitions that require “testing and learning” to be followed by “investing and scaling”. The team that came up with an idea may or may not have accountability for the ongoing support and success of it, once launched. And, while a long-term mindset and patience is critical when innovating, it should not be used as an excuse for poor planning or achieving operational maturity. 

Swiss Army Knife Syndrome 

Attempting to innovate, we experience FOMO believing an omission of features to test in our experiment will disproportionately diminish the impact made. Again, we miss the point of an experiment. The value of the process is to validate what our clients want, and pivot if we missed the mark when testing. Pack too much into an experiment and it is void because you no longer can control or calibrate the test variables and track alternative outcomes. Conversely, a single feature that tests well has the potential to be an on-ramp for future capabilities.

“Pop-ups” afford us a real-world canvas to experiment and make multiple small bets so we can determine, not with anecdotal evidence but through empirical data, what has a higher likelihood of success. 

Does your organization embrace experimentation to gauge the viability of new ideas? Have you had success moving away from testing hypothetical ideas and embraced a scientific approach to testing your hypothesis? I’d love to hear about your experiences below. Apropos, I’m heading for dinner to Pasta Ramen, chef Robbie Felice’s bold experiment with fusing Italian and Japanese food that recently graduated from “pop-up to permanent”.