Probe Storming

Written By Matt Chave

If we are holding a meaningful tension, and we deliberately generate varied, safe-to-fail probes aimed at learning rather than control, then we tend to uncover unexpected insight, test implicit assumptions, and discover more coherent paths forward.

This pattern emerged from the repeated difficulty teams face when trying to move from deep insight to tangible action. In complex environments, the instinct is often to fix or decide prematurely. Probe Storming addresses the need to stay curious and experimental in the face of complexity, turning the moment of tension into an invitation to explore, not resolve.

How to use this pattern

Return to the tension

Begin by reading the named tension aloud. Ask: “What question is this tension inviting us to explore?” Reframe it as a “How might we…” or “What if…” inquiry.

Introduce probe categories

Offer a scaffold to stretch thinking. Typical categories include:

  • The Obvious Probe

  • The Analogous Probe

  • The Disruptive Probe

  • The Naïve Probe

  • The Existential Probe

  • The Diagnostic Probe

  • The Strategic Probe

  • The Coherence Probe

Rapid ideation

Invite individuals or pairs to generate 3–5 probe ideas quickly (within 5–7 minutes). Prioritise range over polish. Use sticky notes or digital tools to capture ideas.

Cluster and reflect.

Group the probes by type. Notice patterns: Which types dominate? Which are underused? What assumptions are already visible in the probe mix?

Refine for learning

For each promising probe:

  • Clarify what you're trying to learn

  • Identify how you’ll observe or collect feedback (e.g. stories, metrics, informal sense)

  • Define the cadence of review

  • Make the probe safe-to-fail: reversible, small, visible

Place probes into Liminal Space

If using a Coherence Map, add the probes into the liminal zone. These are not decisions—they are invitations.

Release and revisit

Let the probes enter the system gently. Revisit them periodically to see:

  • Has anything shifted?

  • What new tensions or coherence have emerged?

  • Do probes need adapting or retiring?

Sense and reflect

Create regular touchpoints for reflection:

  • What changed?

  • What surprised us?

  • Which hypothesis feels more (or less) assertable now?

Affordances

  • The tension is clearly framed as a question; probe types are named and scaffolded.

  • The act of probe generation reveals unseen assumptions, unspoken fears, and imaginative possibilities.

  • If probes are treated like projects or solutions, they lose their experimental value.

Stances

  • The Explorer: curious, generative, willing to test the edges

  • The Challenger: surfaces assumptions by suggesting disruptive probes

  • The Learner: focuses on how feedback will be gathered and meaning made

  • The Connector: draws analogies and links across domains

  • The Skeptic: tests the very existence or framing of the tension

Matt Chave