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.
Product Practice #363 How to IdentifyHigh-Leverage Impacts READ ON HERBIG.CO PUBLISHED May 16, 2025 READING TIME 5 min & 13 sec Dear Reader, An Impact is a metric that describes the achievement of a company- or department-level priority. It's a lagging indicator that changes as a result of multiple compounding efforts, but is not linkable to one individual feature or activity. Most Impacts fall into one of five categories: Growth Engagement Monetization Satisfaction Process Quality From Vague...
Product Practice #362 The Progress Wheel: My favorite Structure to Connect the Dots READ ON HERBIG.CO PUBLISHED May 9, 2025 READING TIME 4 min & 48 sec Dear Reader, Real Progress happens when you choose methods because they create value for you in your context, and you can use each domain to improve the others. To make Real Progress, teams need to understand and practice two core ideas: Putting the value of a practice before the selection of a method or framework is crucial to avoid getting...
Product Practice #361 Connecting North Star Metricsto Business Models READ ON HERBIG.CO PUBLISHED May 2, 2025 READING TIME 4 min & 45 sec Dear Reader, In many organizations, there's still a disconnect between product and business metrics. Product teams focus on customer-centric outcomes while business teams chase financial targets, with neither side fully trusting how one drives the other. When done right, a North Star Metric (NSM) can establish a middle ground that brings together both...