I’m all for integrated teams and collaborative problem-solving, but not every problem is necessarily best solved with a sprint, regardless of how well that sprint is carried out.

Because we’re using a rough version of the scientific method–declaring hypotheses, looking for evidence, constructing experiements–there’s a temptation to apply overly rigorous standards. The decisions we’re making here are rarely life and death though. We’re simply trying to decide whether to move forward on a business idea, a design concept, etc. Our goal is to make the process efficient and reduce the amount of time and money we spend on bad ideas.

So rigor becomes a somewhat subjective call. How much evidence do we need to convince ourselves that something is true or not? What kind of evidence will work?

In my practice, I advice teams to use both qualitative and quantitive research, depending on the question under consideration. Personally, I’m a huge believer in the power of qualitative research and use it whenever I think it’s appropriate.