Eric, although there is always tme to squeeze something in and learn I think a more formal recognition of the need for experimentation time is needed.

There has to be quite a bit of rigour and due diligence around experimentation because if an experiment is successful then the outcome can represent disruptive change.

When a disruptive change takes place there will be a minority in favour of it, probably 40% who will accept it with a reasonable amount of proof, probably 40% who will only accept it IF there is extensive proof and the rest will out-right reject it.

Normally the resisters are the domain experts who have a clear view of the magnitude of the impacts of the change. I've been on that side of the fence myself and know that going into big organisational change without the due diligence is an extremely painful experience. Shining a harsh light on an experiment can help to thrash out gaps in the methodology and thought processes behind the experiment. Equally, it can also reveal something that ends up being a really good solution to the problem that inspired the experiment in the first place.