Learn how Decision Protocols prevent post-experiment paralysis by eliminating unreliable post-hoc decision making in experimentation programmes.

The uncomfortable truth is that most experimentation programs plateau not because of culture, but because of a fundamental gap between good intentions and operational reality. While center of excellence teams and program managers excel at evangelizing experimentation, they lack the tools to enforce the quality standards from their static playbooks.

Most organizations begin their experimentation journey with genuine enthusiasm. Yet recent research reveals a sobering reality: only 12% of organizations rate their experimentation strategy and culture as truly transformative.

When you think of an organization with mature experimentation practices, what comes to mind? If you’re like most executives, you probably picture teams running hundreds of tests, impressive-looking dashboards full of metrics, and maybe a company that just won an award for “experimentation culture”

You’d be wrong.

Experimentation teams have failed at making learning valuable. Experimentation’s most pervasive hypocrisy: publicly celebrating learning while privately focussing on wins and conversion rate uplifts.

Organizations don’t lack experimentation driven insights & knowledge—it’s that they’ve made it inaccessible, incomprehensible, and therefore irrelevant to the people who need it most.

The experimentation industry has a truth problem. The dirty secret of modern experimentation is that we’ve optimized for theatrical success rather than strategic truth, and the language we use perpetuates this dangerous charade.

Experimentation programs lack a fundamental governance tool: an objective experiment scorecard that measures quality and reliability, not just statistical outcomes. Without such a scorecard, your experimentation program is flying blind, mistaking statistical significance for strategic value.

Vanity metrics create a dangerous illusion of progress while masking the fundamental question: Is your experimentation program actually driving better business decisions, or is it just generating activity?

Your board expects results, your teams need direction, and most critically, you need to prove that experimentation deserves a seat at the strategic planning table. The difference between programs that influence strategy and those that merely execute tests comes down to one crucial element: governance.