The Experiment Framework of the MCE Model — Creating Value through Minimal Resources and Feedback-Driven Iteration
#8 MCE Model_Experiment framework
Creative Organized Technology for Product Managers
Beyond Genius:Leveraging Diverse Ad-hoc Teams for Innovation
The Experiment Framework of the MCE Model — Creating Value through Minimal Resources and Feedback-Driven Iteration
Apple started in a garage, Facebook in a college dorm room, and Amazon with just $1,000. Today, they are global giants — but they all began with very limited resources. What these companies had in common wasn’t lots of money or large teams. It was a mindset of “just try it.” They started small, quickly gathered feedback, and kept improving. By repeating this cycle, they created enormous value.
This mindset forms the foundation of the Experiment Framework in the MCE model. It is a method that turns limited resources into an advantage and helps accelerate innovation. Even teams or organizations with little funding or few people can create value by following this approach.
1. Decision Making (PPP-Based Target Setting)
After completing the failure analysis of the Combination Framework(#7 MCE Model:Combination framework), the final decision on which proposal to adopt is made by top management. The role of the product manager (PM) is to make the analysis process transparent up to the point of presenting proposals. Top leaders then make the final decision from a business perspective, considering the overall goals and current situation.
This structured approach — where multiple proposals are presented through a clear and open process — is a core feature of Creative Organized Technology (CreativeOrgTech). It helps prevent future problems such as misunderstandings among stakeholders, dissatisfaction, unclear responsibilities, or questions about the legitimacy of decisions.
Next, the team must evaluate whether it is feasible — both technically and financially — to reach the final target, as defined in Mission Framework’s(#6 MCE Model:Mission framework) Target Setting phase, all at once. Alternatively, the team may choose to set intermediate goals using PPP (Phased Project Planning).
If PPP is adopted, the project begins with Phase 1 by developing an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) with only the essential features. Based on the results of that phase, a MVP2 is created to achieve the goal of Phase 2. This process is repeated with MVP3 in Phase 3, and so on — advancing step by step toward the final target. (Here, MVP2 and MVP3 are used here for convenience.)
This phased approach enables teams to progress toward ambitious goals in a realistic and structured way. The Experiment Framework is a hybrid method that combines NASA’s PPP approach with lean startup principles — specifically, hypothesis testing through MVPs. This makes the framework both practical and adaptable.
2. Execution (Self-Correcting Feedback)
When PPP (Phased Project Planning) is adopted, the team begins by organizing the necessary design information to achieve the objective of Phase 1, and builds an MVP (Minimum Viable Product). Next, they test this MVP with potential customers to observe their reactions (Measure). Based on these results, the team makes improvements to the product or plan (Learn). This Build-Measure-Learn loop forms a self-correcting feedback cycle, leading to the achievement of the Phase 1 objective. Up to this point, the process closely follows the standard lean startup methodology.
Get CreativeOrgTech by Inoo Tanaka’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Moreover, in ad-hoc teams based on the concept of Management Ambidexterity (#4 Management Ambidexterity), adding a step to measure internal stakeholders’ expectations and opinions can further enhance understanding and alignment within the organization. This approach is also utilized in NASA’s PPP through a process called ConOps (Concept of Operations), which focuses on sharing and clarifying stakeholder expectations.
3. Feedback (PIVOT / Phase Feedback)
If the MVP does not produce satisfactory results, the team must decide whether to pivot — changing the direction of the project — or to improve the current plan based on what was learned (Learn), and then move on to the next goal in the PPP (Phased Project Planning). This feedback step helps determine the appropriate direction for the next phase.
4. Production and Implementation (Transfer of Design Information)
Once the final goal, as defined in the Mission Framework(#6 MCE Model:Mission framework), has been achieved, the transfer of design information (implementation) is complete. If mass production is needed, it will then begin.
● Starting with the World’s Smallest Budget, Just 1/1000th of America’s
Japan’s space development has progressed through the Experiment Framework. Let me introduce its beginning. In 1955, both the United States and the Soviet Union announced plans to launch artificial satellites, marking the start of the space race. In the same year, Japan took its first step in space development by launching a small “pencil rocket” measuring just 23 cm long, which was the beginning of Japan’s space program. Later, in October 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the world’s first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, achieving humanity’s first venture into space. Four months later, in January 1958, the United States also succeeded in launching Explorer 1, and the space race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union intensified.
Japan’s space development began with a small research team from the University of Tokyo (an ad-hoc team). The budget the team secured was extremely limited, less than 1/1000th of America’s space development budget. Despite this, the Japanese team set their direction based on the Mission Framework as follows:
- Mission (Mission Analysis): To uncover the mysteries of space (What to do)
- Target (Target Setting): To launch an artificial satellite for Earth observation, as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) activities
To achieve the goals set by the Mission Framework, Japan’s space development team used the Experiment Framework to gradually increase the size and performance of their rockets. The path to the final goal was divided into four phases:
- Phase 1: Used a small Pencil Rocket to collect flight data during launch.
- Phase 2: Used a Baby Rocket equipped with instruments to gather Earth observation data.
- Phase 3: Used a Kappa Rocket to collect scientific data in support of the International Geophysical Year (IGY).
- Phase 4: Used a Lambda Rocket with the aim of placing an artificial satellite into orbit.
In each phase, a self-correcting feedback process called “Build → Measure → Learn” was used, where improvements were made through repeated experiments. In fact, the Pencil Rocket was launched 41 times, the Baby Rocket 13 times, the Kappa Rocket 62 times, and the Lambda Rocket 16 times — each helping to achieve their respective goals. As a result, Japan became the fourth country in the world, after France, to successfully launch an artificial satellite.
Japan’s space development today continues to grow while carrying on its original mission: to unlock the mysteries of the universe. For example, a sample return mission (MUSES-C, later named Hayabusa) has already been carried out, successfully bringing back sand and rocks from an asteroid. Looking ahead, Japan is also planning a mission called MMX (Martian Moons eXploration) to explore the moons of Mars.
The Experiment framework is not limited to space development. It can also be applied to many other fields, such as product innovation and process innovation. These examples will be introduced in the coming articles.
