Separating real experimentation maturity from expensive theatre
The Self-Deception Epidemic
For CPOs and CMOs: You know the conversation.
You’re in the leadership meeting when your CEO asks: “What’s the ROI on our testing investment? Are we actually making better decisions?” Your Head of Product confidently responds: “We have Optimizely and we’re running 200 tests per quarter.” The CRO specialist chimes in: “Our conversion rates are up 15% from testing.” The Centre of Excellence lead adds: “We have full stakeholder engagement and standardised processes.”
As the executive responsible for actually delivering business results, you hear these responses and something doesn’t feel right. The metrics sound impressive, but no one actually answered the CEO’s question about ROI and decision-making. Your gut tells you there’s a gap between what your teams are reporting and the actual business impact you’re seeing.
Trust your instincts. You’re right.
What most organisations have built is elaborate experimentation theatre – expensive, impressive-looking, and fundamentally ineffective at driving the business outcomes you’re accountable for. The problem isn’t incompetence; it’s that the entire industry has conditioned us to measure maturity using metrics that sound sophisticated but predict nothing about business impact.
This guide will help you cut through the noise and assess what’s actually happening beneath the surface of your “advanced” experimentation programme.
Myth #1: “We Have a Testing Tool = We’re Experimentation-Driven”
The Myth: Purchasing Optimizely, VWO, or Adobe Target transforms your organisation into a data-driven decision-making powerhouse.
The Reality Check: Having a testing tool makes you experimentation-capable, not experimentation-driven. It’s like claiming you’re a professional chef because you bought expensive knives.
What Actually Matters:
- How often do experiments influence strategic business decisions?
- What percentage of your product roadmap is validated through testing?
- Can you trace revenue impact back to specific experimental insights?
The Uncomfortable Truth: Most organisations with sophisticated testing platforms still make major decisions based on executive opinion, competitive copying, or industry best practices. The tool sits there, running tactical optimisations whilst strategic questions go unvalidated.
Real Maturity Indicator: Executives can cite specific examples where experiments changed their minds about important business assumptions.
Myth #2: “We Run Hundreds of Tests = We Have Maturity”
The Myth: High test volume demonstrates experimentation sophistication. More experiments equal more learning equal better business outcomes.
The Reality Check: Running 400 low-impact tests is far less mature than running 40 strategically aligned experiments. You’re confusing activity with progress.
What Actually Matters:
- What percentage of tests address strategic business questions vs tactical optimisations?
- How many experiments validate core business model assumptions?
- What’s your ratio of implemented changes to completed tests?
The Uncomfortable Truth: Most high-volume testing programmes are sophisticated procrastination. Teams stay busy with button colour tests whilst avoiding the hard questions about product-market fit, pricing strategy, or customer value propositions.
Real Maturity Indicator: You can explain how your experimentation portfolio systematically addresses your biggest business uncertainties.
Myth #3: “Stakeholders Attend Meetings = We Have Buy-In”
The Myth: When your VP occasionally shows up to experimentation reviews, logs into your dashboard, or approves your testing budget, you have leadership engagement.
The Reality Check: Passive consumption of experimentation updates isn’t buy-in – it’s polite tolerance. Real buy-in means leaders actively use experimental thinking in their decision-making processes.
What Actually Matters:
- Do executives ask for experimental validation before major decisions?
- Are strategic initiatives designed with built-in experimentation plans?
- Does leadership challenge assumptions using experimental evidence?
The Uncomfortable Truth: Most “engaged” stakeholders treat experimentation like a nice-to-have reporting function rather than an essential business capability. They’ll listen to your updates, nod appreciatively, then make their next major decision based on gut instinct.
Real Maturity Indicator: Leadership refuses to proceed with significant investments without experimental validation of key assumptions.
Myth #4: “We Have a Centre of Excellence = We Have Governance”
The Myth: Creating a CoE team with experimentation specialists, standardised processes, and regular reviews equals mature governance.
The Reality Check: Most Centres of Excellence are glorified training departments that hold rituals and meetings to create the illusion of control whilst having zero authority to enforce any standards.
What Actually Matters:
- Can your CoE actually stop a poorly designed experiment from launching?
- Do they have authority to override stakeholder demands for quick results?
- Can they enforce quality standards when teams are under pressure?
The Uncomfortable Truth: Most CoEs become expensive bottlenecks staffed by people who gatekeep access to experimentation whilst obfuscating the truth about programme effectiveness. They run workshops, create templates, and hold “governance” meetings that feel productive but change nothing about how decisions actually get made. When stakeholders want quick answers or teams face deadlines, the CoE’s “standards” get bypassed entirely.
The Authority Problem: Without real power to enforce standards, CoEs default to being service bureaus that help teams run better tests rather than governance bodies that ensure testing drives better business decisions. They become the experimentation police that everyone ignores when convenient.
Real Maturity Indicator: Your CoE can demonstrate clear ROI on experimentation investment, has authority to block strategically misaligned work, and operates as a business function rather than a support service.
Myth #5: “We Have Processes = We Have Discipline”
The Myth: Documented workflows, approval processes, and standardised methodologies demonstrate experimentation discipline.
The Reality Check: Process documentation often becomes theatre – impressive binders that nobody actually follows when facing real business pressures.
What Actually Matters:
- Are your processes actually enforced during crunch times?
- Do teams follow governance frameworks even when stakeholders demand quick answers?
- Does your methodology systematically prevent the biases that destroy experiment validity?
The Uncomfortable Truth: Most experimentation processes crumble under the first sign of executive impatience or competitive pressure. Teams revert to opinion-based decision-making whilst maintaining the illusion of scientific rigour.
Real Maturity Indicator: Your processes remain intact even when facing urgent deadlines or conflicting stakeholder demands.
Myth #6: “We Share Results = We Have Learning Culture”
The Myth: Regular reporting, shared dashboards, and experimentation newsletters create a learning organisation.
The Reality Check: Information sharing isn’t learning – it’s broadcasting. Real learning culture means insights systematically influence future behaviour across the organisation.
What Actually Matters:
- Do experimental insights change how other teams approach similar problems?
- Is institutional knowledge preserved when team members leave?
- Are failed experiments treated as valuable learning rather than embarrassing mistakes?
The Uncomfortable Truth: Most organisations share experimental results the same way they share weather reports – interesting information that doesn’t actually change anyone’s behaviour.
Real Maturity Indicator: You can demonstrate how insights from experiments in one area systematically improve decision-making in other areas of the business.
The Real Maturity Assessment
Stop measuring maturity by tools, volume, or processes. Start measuring by business impact:
Tier 1: Activity Theatre
- Focus on test velocity and statistical significance
- Stakeholders consume but don’t act on insights
- Governance covers process, not strategic alignment
- Success measured by activity metrics
Tier 2: Tactical Optimisation
- Experiments improve specific metrics but don’t influence strategy
- Leadership supports testing but doesn’t require it for decisions
- Governance ensures quality but not business relevance
- Success measured by conversion improvements
Tier 3: Strategic Capability
- Experiments validate business model assumptions
- Leadership demands experimental evidence for major decisions
- Governance connects testing directly to business outcomes
- Success measured by strategic decisions influenced
Tier 4: Competitive Advantage
- Experimentation capability becomes differentiated business strength
- Organisation systematically out-learns competitors
- Governance creates institutional intelligence that compounds over time
- Success measured by market position improvements
The Uncomfortable Questions
If you want to assess your real experimentation maturity, ask these questions:
- If we stopped all experimentation tomorrow, how would our strategic decision-making process change?
- Can we quantify the business value delivered by our experimentation investment over the past year?
- Do our experiments systematically reduce the biggest uncertainties facing our business?
- Would our competitive position be noticeably different without our experimentation programme?
- If our entire experimentation team left, would the institutional knowledge leave with them?
If you’re uncomfortable with your answers, you’re likely investing in experimentation theatre rather than building experimentation capability.
The Bottom Line
Real experimentation maturity isn’t about tools, volume, or processes. It’s about systematically transforming business uncertainty into competitive advantage through disciplined learning.
Most organisations that consider themselves “mature” are actually sophisticated beginners – they’ve mastered the mechanics of testing whilst completely missing the strategic purpose.
The organisations that recognise this gap and address it systematically will transform experimentation from cost centre to competitive differentiator.
The organisations that remain satisfied with expensive theatre will continue wondering why their “advanced” experimentation programmes aren’t driving transformative business impact.
Which organisation will you choose to be?
Ready to move beyond experimentation theatre? Start by honestly assessing where your programme falls on the real maturity spectrum.
Efestra provides senior leaders with a comprehensive audit of their experimentation and innovation capabilities and ensure they are trustworthy and reliable.
