Experimentation Maturity & Data Trust Assessment
Measures A/B testing ease-of-use, guardrail adoption, result trust, and decision confidence among product and engineering teams. Use it to identify friction points, governance gaps, and training needs to scale experimentation.
Sample questions
A preview of what’s in the template. Every question is editable before you launch.
How often are experiments (e.g., A/B tests, feature experiments) part of your work?
- Regularly (monthly or more)
- Occasionally (quarterly)
- Rarely (yearly or less)
- Never
How easy or difficult is it to set up a standard A/B test using your current tools and processes?
Which of the following quality controls are currently enforced in your experimentation workflow? Select all that apply.
- Pre-launch checklist
- Blocking deployment on missing instrumentation
- Automated SRM (sample ratio mismatch) alerting
- Sequential testing / alpha spending
- Max exposure or blast-radius limits
- Quality gates for key metrics
- Post-experiment QA template
- None of the above
- Other (please specify)
How much do you trust your organization's experiment results to inform product decisions?
Rank the following phases of a typical experiment by how much effort they require (most effort at top).
- Planning and design
- Instrumentation and data validation
- Implementation and rollout setup
- Running and monitoring
- Analysis and interpretation
- Decision and rollout
- Documentation and communication
The next two questions are for those who do not currently run experiments. If you do run experiments, please skip ahead.
Based on your responses, we'd like to explore your experimentation experience in a bit more depth. Please share your thoughts openly—an AI moderator may ask a follow-up question or two.
What is your primary role?
- Product manager
- Engineer
- Data scientist / analyst
- Designer / UX
- Growth / marketing
- Other (please specify)
All set—thank you for sharing your perspective! Your responses will help us identify ways to improve experimentation practices across the organization.
Which platforms or approaches do you currently use for experimentation? Select all that apply.
- In-house experimentation framework
- Feature flag platform (e.g., LaunchDarkly, Flagsmith)
- Third-party A/B tool (e.g., Optimizely, VWO, AB Tasty)
- SQL / notebooks only (no dedicated tool)
- Dashboarding tool (e.g., internal BI)
- None of the above
- Other (please specify)
How easy or difficult is it to analyze a completed experiment and interpret its results?
What is the primary decision rule your team uses to determine whether an experiment's results are conclusive?
- Fixed p-value threshold (e.g., 0.05)
- Bayesian decision rule
- Business threshold / minimum detectable effect
- Case-by-case judgement
- No standard rule / not sure
- Other (please specify)
How confident are you in acting on an experiment's outcome to make a product or business decision?
What one change would most improve your experimentation workflow?
What are the main reasons you do not currently run experiments? Select all that apply.
- Not enough traffic to test
- Missing instrumentation / metrics
- Tooling is hard to use
- Unclear process or approvals
- Lack of statistical support
- Feature timelines too tight
- We prioritize other methods (e.g., user research)
- Other (please specify)
Which team are you primarily part of?
- Core product
- Platform / infrastructure
- Growth / monetization
- Data / analytics
- Other / cross-functional
In the last 3 months, approximately how many experiments did you help design, run, or analyze?
- 0
- 1–2
- 3–5
- 6–10
- 11–20
- More than 20
What, if anything, most undermines your trust in experiment results today? Please share specifics.
What resources, tools, or support would help you start running experiments confidently?
How many years have you been involved in running or analyzing experiments?
- Less than 1 year
- 1–2 years
- 3–5 years
- 6–9 years
- 10+ years
Rank the following blockers to reliable experimentation from biggest (top) to smallest (bottom).
- Data quality / instrumentation issues
- Metric definitions ambiguity
- Sample contamination / overlap
- Insufficient traffic / power
- Engineering constraints / time
- Organizational pressure to ship
Where are you primarily located?
- Americas
- EMEA
- APAC
- Prefer not to say
Approximately how many employees are in your company?
- 1–49
- 50–249
- 250–999
- 1,000–4,999
- 5,000+
- Prefer not to say
What’s included
AI follow-ups
Adaptive probes on open-ended answers that pull out detail a static form would miss.
Attention checks
Built-in safeguards against rushed answers and low-quality respondents.
AI-drafted copy
Wording, ordering, and branching written by the AI — tuned to your research goal.
Auto report
Themes, quotes, and a plain-English summary write themselves once responses come in.
Ready to launch?
Open this template in the editor. Every part is yours to change before the first respondent sees it.
Related templates
More studies from the same category.
E-commerce Customer Journey Diary Study
A structured diary study instrument for capturing in-the-moment e-commerce experiences across touchpoints and tasks. Designed for repeated daily entries to identify pain points, emotional states, and task-completion barriers throughout the customer journey.
View templateE-Commerce Shopping Diary Study: 14-Day Behavioral Log
A structured 3-entry diary study for UX researchers to capture real online shopping journeys, friction points, and purchase decision drivers over a 14-day period.
View templateE-Commerce Concept Test: Appeal, Clarity & Differentiation
A structured concept testing survey for evaluating new e-commerce ideas with online shoppers. Measures appeal, clarity, perceived differentiation, and trial intent to inform positioning decisions before launch.
View templateAcademic Researcher Experience & Support Survey
Measures how graduate students, postdocs, and faculty actually spend their research time, and how well funding, mentorship, protected time, and collaboration support their work. An AI follow-up interview digs into the single biggest obstacle each respondent names, reconstructing a concrete recent example instead of a vague complaint. Built for research offices, deans, and PIs benchmarking research support.
View templateSensitive Topic List Experiment (Item Count)
Measure behaviors people won't admit directly: the list experiment (item count technique) asks only HOW MANY statements apply — never which — so individual answers stay genuinely deniable while group comparisons reveal the true rate. The native question type randomizes control and treatment lists for you.
View templateUnmoderated Usability Test with Screen Share & Voice
A self-serve usability session: participants share their screen, complete guided tasks on your website or prototype while thinking aloud, and the AI moderator watches, prompts, and probes — then debriefs them. You get recordings, transcripts, and task-level analysis without scheduling a single session.
View template