Experiment Template
Too often, teams wait until something is fully figured out before taking action. The Experiment Template is designed to break that habit. It helps individuals and teams test ideas early, stay aligned while learning, and refine their approach as they go.
Why Use It?
This template helps clarify purpose, structure your effort, and most importantly—build shared understanding. Whether you're testing a process change, a new product idea, or an internal initiative, this tool gives you a repeatable way to learn and improve.
The Structure
There are four sections:
The Goal
What are we trying to learn, change, or accomplish? This section will likely evolve as the work unfolds—start rough and refine it over time.
The Experiment
What are we actually going to do? Don't worry about detailing every step up front. A high-level plan is a great place to begin.
The Hypotheses
What do we believe might happen—and how will we know? Hypotheses guide learning. They're not expectations to fulfill, they're bets we test.
The Result
What did we observe, and what did we decide based on what we saw? What will we do next?
Key Principles
The process can take as little as an hour or span several days.
There's no fixed pace. Sometimes the full experiment plays out in a meeting. Other times it requires deep focus, multiple rounds of iteration, or team-wide effort.
Don't aim for perfection up front.
Every section will change as you build out the others. That's normal. Expect and embrace the back-and-forth.
Track objections as hypotheses.
Hypotheses aren't just for those already aligned with the idea. They're an excellent place to include skeptics. If someone thinks the experiment's off-track, ask them: "How will we know this isn't the right path?" Add that as a hypothesis. It creates clarity, surfaces assumptions, and may even improve the design of the experiment.
Set a clear review date.
Every experiment needs a deadline. Pick a specific date to review the results—this prevents experiments from lingering indefinitely and ensures the team stays focused on learning. The date should be far enough out to gather meaningful data, but close enough to maintain momentum.
Possible hypothesis outcomes:
Walkthrough Example 1: Team Standup Format
A team is frustrated by daily standups feeling repetitive and low-value. A few members suggest experimenting with a new format that includes rotating facilitation and a focus on blockers.
The Goal
Improve the daily standup so that it feels more useful and energizing for the team, with clearer next steps and fewer redundant updates.
The Experiment
Try a new format for standup over two weeks:
- Each day, a different person facilitates.
- Instead of going around the circle with "what I did / what I'm doing," the facilitator asks:
- What are you stuck on?
- Who needs help today?
- Is there anything the team should discuss after this?
The Hypotheses
Review Date: March 1, 2024
| Hypothesis | Test | Outcome | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| The new format will take less time than the old format. | Compare average duration over 2 weeks |
Mostly True
|
Standup averaged 9 mins; old format was 12 mins. |
| Team members will feel more energized by standup. | Anonymous pulse survey on Day 3, 6, 10 |
Inconclusive
|
Some felt energized, others found it disorienting. |
| Rotating facilitation will help quieter voices get heard. | Track facilitator rotation and team feedback |
False
|
Most facilitators were the same few people. |
| If this format is worse, someone will raise it within 3 days. | Monitor Slack and 1:1s |
True
|
Two people raised concerns by Day 2. |
| There will be confusion and overlap in updates. | Ask in retro if people missed the old format's clarity |
Mostly False
|
A few missed updates, but not enough to derail things. |
The Result
The team decided to keep the shorter format but added a Friday wrap-up to cover "what got done" and give space for shoutouts. Rotating facilitation was dropped. The experiment helped them see that what they really wanted was more connection and celebration, not just efficiency.
Walkthrough Example 2: Changing How Projects Are Staffed
Leads are spending hours trying to assign engineers to new projects. The process feels opaque, and engineers often feel shoehorned into roles. A proposal is made to try "self-staffing."
The Goal
Test whether self-staffing leads to better project fit, faster ramp-up, and increased engagement—without causing major delivery risks or resource gaps.
The Experiment
For the next three new projects:
- Leads write clear project briefs with scope, timeline, required skills, and time commitment.
- Engineers review the briefs and submit their top 2 choices.
- Leads confirm assignments based on interest, coverage, and constraints.
The Hypotheses
Review Date: February 15, 2024
| Hypothesis | Test | Outcome | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-staffing will take less time than traditional assignment meetings. | Compare time spent by leads on staffing |
True
|
Reduced staffing time by ~6 hours per project round. |
| Engineers will feel more ownership over their projects. | Pulse survey after assignment + 2 weeks into the project |
Mostly True
|
80% reported stronger connection to their work. |
| Some projects will get overlooked or receive fewer volunteers. | Track how many engineers selected each project |
False
|
One project needed nudging to get coverage. |
| There will be skill mismatches that impact early velocity. | Leads report on project ramp-up after 2 weeks |
False
|
Ramp-up was actually smoother with higher motivation. |
| Leads will just override choices, making this moot. | Compare initial preferences vs. final assignments |
Mostly False
|
90% got one of their top 2 picks. |
The Result
The org kept a modified version: project leads now flag roles that require specific skills and allow self-staffing for all others. Engineers feel more engaged, and leads spend far less time arguing about resourcing.
Walkthrough Example 3: Shifting Leadership Decision-Making
The leadership team feels stuck in long meetings debating decisions that never feel final. A proposal is made to experiment with a "disagree and commit" framework to improve clarity and reduce churn.
The Goal
Test whether introducing a clearer process for disagreement and commitment helps the leadership team make decisions faster and with more follow-through.
The Experiment
For 6 weeks, all strategic decisions follow this structure:
- Propose a decision (with a clear decider).
- Time-boxed discussion (10 minutes).
- If no consensus, the decider makes the call.
- Anyone who disagrees logs it but commits publicly to supporting it.
The Hypotheses
Review Date: January 30, 2024
| Hypothesis | Test | Outcome | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership decisions will take less time. | Compare time spent per decision over the 6-week period |
Mostly True
|
Avg decision time dropped from 25 to 12 minutes. |
| More decisions will actually stick without re-litigation. | Track how often decisions are reopened |
Mostly False
|
Two decisions were reopened within a week. |
| Team members will feel more confident about clarity and ownership. | Pulse survey after 3 and 6 weeks |
Inconclusive
|
Split feedback—some felt clarity improved, others felt rushed. |
| The decider role will create power struggles. | Track friction/confusion around who is the decider |
False
|
One instance of confusion, but generally smooth. |
| A log of disagreements will surface key themes we should address later. | Review disagreement log at end of 6 weeks |
True
|
Several recurring themes were identified, leading to deeper convos. |
The Result
The team adopted the structure for major decisions but adjusted the timebox and added a post-decision check-in one week later. The experiment surfaced both cultural and operational gaps that were previously invisible.
Conclusion
The Experiment Template isn't just a tool—it's a mindset. It gives structure to ambiguity, invites people into the learning process, and makes risk more manageable by naming it explicitly. Whether you're testing a new meeting format, rethinking staffing, or evolving leadership practices, this framework gives you a way to move forward while staying open to change.
Start small. Stay curious. Track what matters. And when in doubt, write a hypothesis.