Why Your 'Correct' Discovery Method Might Be WrongDear Reader, "Which experiment should we run next?" This question comes up in almost every Discovery coaching session I facilitate. Teams often focus on finding the methodologically perfect way to test their assumptions. But here's the thing: the most technically correct experiment isn't always the right one to run. When choosing methods for Product Discovery, we often focus on what fits our research question or assumption best. Say you want to understand how users perceive features in your product. A diary study might be the perfect method—capturing real usage patterns over time. But what if it takes three months to get reliable insights? A series of well-structured interviews or shadowing sessions might get you 80% of the way there in just two weeks. Several factors determine your lead time to insight:
Here's another way to think about it: An A/B test might seem quick to start—taking just hours or days to implement. But depending on your traffic and conversion rates, it could take weeks or months to reach statistical significance. In contrast, while recruiting participants for qualitative interviews might take two weeks, you could have reliable insights within days of completing them. Neither method is inherently better. What matters is the total time to reliable insight, not just how quickly you can get started. So, when picking your next Discovery priority, ask yourself:
Here's a practical tip: When evaluating lead time, avoid abstract scoring systems. Instead, estimate the actual duration by adding:
This concrete timeline helps you make practical trade-offs between methods. Remember: The goal isn't to achieve perfect certainty. It's to reduce uncertainty enough to make confident decisions about what to build next. Did you enjoy the newsletter? Please forward it. It only takes two clicks. Creating this one took two hours. Thank you for Practicing Product, Tim Good News!Some last tickets are available for my in-person Product Discovery workshop on March 10 in London (as part of Mind the Product conference).
As a Product Management Coach, I guide Product Teams to measure the real progress of their evidence-informed decisions. I focus on better practices to connect the dots of Product Strategy, Product OKRs, and Product Discovery. |
1 tip & 3 resources per week to improve your Strategy, OKRs, and Discovery practices in less than 5 minutes. Explore my new book on realprogressbook.com
Product Practice #397 3 Things to Put into YourNext Strategy Document PUBLISHED Feb 27, 2026 READ ON HERBIG.CO Dear Reader, The most effective strategy document I've seen doesn't worry about the looks or format. Whether it's a scrappy Google Doc or a fancy Miro template, what matters is the quality and cohesiveness of the information it contains. Make sure what you cover aligns with your company's expected standards to ensure stakeholder understanding and, consequently, buy-in. But make sure...
Hallo liebe:r Leser:in, English Translation below for internal forwarding to your German colleagues Du lieferst Features aus und wirst nach KPIs gefragt – ohne Verbindung zu Erfolg für Nutzer:innen und Geschäft. Die Strategie deines Unternehmens ist entweder zu vage oder fehlt ganz. Das Ergebnis: Alibi Progress statt echter Wirkung.In meinem Workshop "Strategische Umsetzung statt KPIs abarbeiten – Entwicklung & Messung von Produktstrategie am 4. Mai im Rahmen der Product Owner Days 2026...
Product Practice #396 MECE: Double the Usefulnessof Your Metrics Trees PUBLISHED Feb 19, 2026 READ ON HERBIG.CO Dear Reader, Many resources say your metrics trees need to be "MECE." But how do you do it? MECE stands for: Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive In the context of metrics trees, this means mapping the individual drivers of an overarching goal in a way that allows us to identify and improve domain-specific levers through selective focus, while creating holistic...