I'm not sure I would use re-thought as the answer varies by company, stage and team. Instead, I recommend a discussion and decision regarding who does what, to ensure there isn't a duplication of effort.
One area where there is typically quite a bit of discussion is around experimentation - when, who runs it, and what is the goal.
At a high level, because of the associated risk and uncertainty. The key is to focus on two-way door decisions, which can always be reverted if the experiment does not go as desired. I also recommend breaking down experiments into small tests to prevent an all or nothing approach, instead you are driving continuous improvements + continuous iteration.
I'm not sure I would use re-thought as the answer varies by company, stage and team. Instead, I recommend a discussion and decision regarding who does what, to ensure there isn't a duplication of effort.
One area where there is typically quite a bit of discussion is around experimentation - when, who runs it, and what is the goal.
Why does experimentation elicit so much discussion you think?
At a high level, because of the associated risk and uncertainty. The key is to focus on two-way door decisions, which can always be reverted if the experiment does not go as desired. I also recommend breaking down experiments into small tests to prevent an all or nothing approach, instead you are driving continuous improvements + continuous iteration.
any companies that do this really well?
Amazon and Google are the ones that come to mind immediately.
This article showed up in one of my newsletters today. Quite timely --> https://hbr.org/2020/03/building-a-culture-of-experimentation
spot on - I did a 5 min audio episode about this exact situation (trying to use a new tool while still operating in an old mindset) https://runthebusiness.substack.com/p/new-toolkit-old-mindset
Relying too much on science without leaving room for the creative mind
What’s an example of this anti-pattern in practice?