MTH-0004 · S5 Test
Hypothesis-driven experimentation (the scientific approach)
support: strong
Defined in: SRC-0025 D The Lean Startup; SRC-0007 D Testing Business Ideas
Supported by: SRC-0031 A The scientific-approach RCTs (Camuffo, Cordova, Gambardella & Spina and replications); SRC-0029 B Experimentation Works: The Surprising Power of Business Experiments
What it is
Treat the idea as a theory: make assumptions explicit, rank them by risk,
test the riskiest with a deliberate experiment carrying a pre-declared
decision rule, and act on the result — including termination. The common core
that Lean Startup, Testing Business Ideas and corporate A/B programmes all
operationalise.
What supports it
The best evidence in the methods layer. Five RCTs (SRC-0031: the 2020
Management Science trial plus the four-trial 2024 replication, 759 firms
total) show causal effects on termination of weak ideas and decisive
pivoting. SRC-0029 grounds the organisational version: firms running
experiments at industrial scale with authority to act on results. This is the
one method the atlas can call supported without blushing.
Known limits
The RCT outcomes are early-stage — termination, pivots, early revenue — not
long-run survival or returns. And the discipline is socially expensive: a
pre-declared kill threshold binds the sponsor too, which is exactly why
organisations quietly drop it.
Where it is used
The S5 gate itself: no build budget without a named hypothesis, a named
experiment and a kill threshold declared before data arrives. This record is
the citation for that rule.
MTH-0008 · S7 Govern
Organizational ambidexterity (explore/exploit separation)
support: strong
Defined in: SRC-0009 B Lead and Disrupt
Supported by: SRC-0009 B Lead and Disrupt
What it is
Run exploitation and exploration as structurally separate units — different
metrics, cadences and cultures — integrated only at the senior-team level,
so the core business cannot smother experiments and experiments cannot
destabilise the core. O'Reilly and Tushman's three disciplines: ideation,
incubation, scaling.
What supports it
SRC-0009, rated B: systematic case evidence across firms and decades that
structural separation with senior-team integration beats both full
integration and full spin-off. Grounded, not replicated — B-grade support is
the ceiling here, and per the ratings it carries a design choice, not a gate.
Known limits
Survivor-heavy case base, and the method's cost scales with organisation
size — a separate exploratory unit below a certain firm size is a courtesy
title for one distracted person. Says little about when to fold exploration
back in.
Where it is used
The S7 argument for keeping exploratory budget and metrics out of the line
business's quarterly logic. Cited when designing mandates, not when judging
any single concept.
MTH-0001 · S2 Frame
Opportunity scoring (refined ODI)
support: weak
Defined in: SRC-0011 D Jobs to Be Done: Theory to Practice
Supported by: SRC-0011 D Jobs to Be Done: Theory to Practice
What it is
Opportunity = importance + max(importance − satisfaction, 0), normalised to 0–10 for
use alongside other scoring dimensions. Importance and satisfaction are rated by the
customer, not by us.
What supports it
SRC-0011 (Ulwick), rated D. The formula's defence is arithmetic rather than empirical:
it double-weights importance and, unlike plain gap analysis, does not penalise needs
that are already well served. That reasoning stands on its own. The published success
rates attached to the method are vendor-reported and unreplicated, and are not used
here as justification.
Known limits
- Assumes the customer can articulate a stable desired outcome. Many of ours cannot.
- Silent on needs created by regulation rather than by the customer, which is a large
share of our portfolio.
- Produces a number, and numbers survive contexts their assumptions do not. Carry the
rating with the score.
Where it is used
Concept intake and the S2 framing worksheet.
MTH-0003 · S5 Test
Build–Measure–Learn (Lean Startup loop)
support: weak
Defined in: SRC-0025 D The Lean Startup
Derived from: SRC-0006 D The Four Steps to the Epiphany
Supported by: SRC-0031 A The scientific-approach RCTs (Camuffo, Cordova, Gambardella & Spina and replications)
What it is
The loop: state the riskiest assumption, build the smallest artefact that
tests it, measure against a pre-declared threshold, then pivot or persevere.
Descends directly from Blank's customer development (SRC-0006) with the
test-fast vocabulary that made it a movement.
What supports it
The RCT line (SRC-0031) supports the loop's scientific core — hypotheses,
tests, decision rules — with replicated causal evidence. It does not test the
brand as practised: innovation accounting, engines of growth and the rest of
the book's apparatus remain unevidenced, which is why the strength here is
weak rather than strong. The strong record is MTH-0004.
Known limits
Assumes building is cheap, shipping is reversible and failure is private.
Hardware, clinical and grid-connected work violate all three; there the loop's
unit is a simulation or a paper trial, not a shipped MVP.
Where it is used
The team's working vocabulary for S5 cadence. Any gate paper citing "lean"
must cite SRC-0031 for the principle and name its kill threshold, per the
standing experiment rule.
MTH-0006 · S2 Frame
Jobs to be done
support: weak
Defined in: SRC-0011 D Jobs to Be Done: Theory to Practice; SRC-0028 D Competing Against Luck: The Story of Innovation and Customer Choice
Supported by: SRC-0011 D Jobs to Be Done: Theory to Practice
What it is
Frame demand as the progress a customer is trying to make in a circumstance —
the job — and specify desired outcomes for it, rather than segmenting by who
the customer is. Two dialects: Ulwick's outcome-driven machinery (SRC-0011)
and Christensen's narrative theory (SRC-0028).
What supports it
D-rated practitioner sources on both dialects — consulting portfolios and the
milkshake anecdote, with Ulwick's success rates vendor-reported and
unreplicated. The lens reliably produces better interview questions than
demographic segmentation does; that observation is craft, and craft is what
weak-via-D-sources means here.
Known limits
Assumes an articulable, stable job. Regulation-created needs — a large share
of infrastructure work — have no customer who can voice the job, and
multi-actor B2B purchases have several conflicting ones.
Where it is used
S2 framing interviews and the outcome statements that MTH-0001 then scores.
The jobs lens shapes questions; it never appears in a gate paper as a finding.
Defined in: SRC-0027 C Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology
Supported by: SRC-0027 C Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology
What it is
Deliberately sourcing ideas, technology and routes to market across the firm
boundary — scouting, licensing in and out, partnerships, spin-outs — instead
of defaulting to internal R&D for everything.
What supports it
Chesbrough's argued case studies (SRC-0027, rated C): coherent framing, no
tested proposition. Von Hippel's user-innovation evidence (SRC-0003) supports
one specific channel — users as originators — better than the general
open-beats-closed claim is supported anywhere.
Known limits
Appropriability: openness leaks exactly as easily as it absorbs, and the
framework offers no test for when the licence out is the business walking out.
The academic literature after 2003 multiplied definitions faster than
evidence.
Where it is used
S1 scouting posture and the make-buy-license question at the S7 portfolio
gate, as framing and checklist. Any claim that an open arrangement will raise
returns needs its own evidence, case by case.
MTH-0009 · S5 Test
Experiment selection from a catalogue
support: weak
Defined in: SRC-0007 D Testing Business Ideas
Supported by: SRC-0007 D Testing Business Ideas
Adoption: 1M+ practitioners, vendor-reported (Strategyzer), unaudited
What it is
Pick the test from a catalogued library of 40+ experiment types, matched to
the assumption at risk and ranked by evidence strength, cost and setup time —
instead of inventing an experiment ad hoc or defaulting to a survey.
What supports it
SRC-0007, rated D: the catalogue is craft with no outcome data of its own.
Its premise — that deliberate experiments with decision rules beat intuition —
is the part SRC-0031 evidences; the specific catalogue and its
evidence-strength rankings are the authors' judgment.
Known limits
Built for digital and service propositions; the catalogue thins out exactly
where our work gets hard (hardware, certification, regulated infrastructure).
Evidence-strength rankings inside the book are asserted, not measured.
Where it is used
The S5 worksheet: every riskiest assumption is paired with one named
experiment from the catalogue and a pre-declared kill threshold. The pairing
discipline is ours; the menu is the book's.
MTH-0002 · S3 Concept
Business Model Canvas
support: none
Defined in: SRC-0026 D Business Model Generation
Adoption: 6M+ practitioners, vendor-reported (Strategyzer), unaudited
What it is
One page, nine blocks: customer segments, value propositions, channels,
customer relationships, revenue streams, key resources, key activities, key
partnerships, cost structure. A shared drawing convention for what the
business is supposed to be.
What supports it
Nothing that clears the bar. Uptake is enormous but vendor-counted; the one
study associating heavy Canvas use with accelerator pitch results (271 teams)
was exploratory and measured competition performance. The honest statement:
this is the most widely spoken business-model notation, and notation is what
it is — support_strength none is not a criticism of a map for being a map.
Known limits
A canvas records beliefs; it cannot test one, rank one, or notice it is wrong.
Nine tidy boxes also flatter tidy businesses — platform, regulated and
multi-sided models fight the template.
Where it is used
Every concept entering S3 gets drawn as a canvas before it may request
experiment budget. The drawing feeds the assumption list that SRC-0007-style
experiments then attack.
Defined in: SRC-0032 D Design Thinking Bootleg (Stanford d.school); SRC-0033 D The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design (IDEO.org)
What it is
A structured discovery process — empathize with users, define the problem,
ideate widely, prototype cheaply, test early — taught as five modes (Stanford)
or three phases (IDEO). In practice: a facilitation repertoire for getting a
team out of the building and out of its first idea.
What supports it
Teaching practice and two decades of consulting portfolios; no outcome data
that clears the bar. The craft value of specific methods (structured
interviews, rapid prototyping) is real and partly borrowed from evidenced
traditions, but "design thinking" as a package has never been shown to cause
better innovation outcomes. Strength none, used anyway, per the methods rule.
Known limits
Front-loaded: everything before viability. The process manufactures
desirability insight and says nothing about who pays or what a test should
kill. Workshop theatre is a documented failure mode — five modes performed in
an afternoon, nothing decided.
Where it is used
S2 discovery work, using the kits' method cards under our own evidence rules.
It feeds hypotheses to MTH-0004; it never replaces it.