Why Do We Learn More from What Did Not Work?

By Pascal Dennis (bio)

Building on Al's recent blog, why do we learn from more failure than success?

Seems to me, it's because failure illuminates more of the design space than success.

Supposing we're testing the structural integrity of say, a hard hat, by dropping a heavy weight on it.

If we test to the standard, (say 20 kg) and the hard hat remains intact, you've learned something about what sort of blow it can sustain.

But suppose we keep dropping heavier & heavier weights, and vary the angle of the blows - until the hard hat shatters.

Our analysis of the fragments, breakage pattern, of the slow motion video and so on, will teach us far more about the nature of hard hats.

That's why experienced labs & design teams test to failure.

A caveat, as Al suggests, is that we fail quick & fail often, (to minimize hassle & transaction cost.)

A second caveat: our failures are controlled & buffered so nobody gets hurt!

These same principles apply in strategy, product & process design and problem solving.

That's why we say 'problems are gold'.

We have to be comfortable, of course, with experimentation & ambiguity.

In my experience, the best leaders create a sense of free-wheeling energy & opportunity.

"Let's try some stuff -- and see what happens!"

"Holy cow, who would have thought...!?"

Best,

Pascal


In case you missed our last few blogs... please feel free to have another look…

Failure is a Requirement for Innovation
KAIZEN – Small Changes vs. Monster Projects
Is Inventory a waste or a cover-up of deeper waste?
7 Basic Quality Tools – Are they underrated?

Why Do We Learn More from What Did Not Work?

By Pascal Dennis

Building on Al's recent blog, why do we learn from more failure than success?

Seems to me, it's because failure illuminates more of the design space than success.

Supposing we're testing the structural integrity of say, a hard hat, by dropping a heavy weight on it.

If we test to the standard, (say 20 kg) and the hard hat remains intact, you've learned something about what sort of blow it can sustain.

But suppose we keep dropping heavier & heavier weights, and vary the angle of the blows - until the hard hat shatters.

Our analysis of the fragments, breakage pattern, of the slow motion video and so on, will teach us far more about the nature of hard hats.

That's why experienced labs & design teams test to failure.

A caveat, as Al suggests, is that we fail quick & fail often, (to minimize hassle & transaction cost.)

A second caveat: our failures are controlled & buffered so nobody gets hurt!

These same principles apply in strategy, product & process design and problem solving.

That's why we say 'problems are gold'.

We have to be comfortable, of course, with experimentation & ambiguity.

In my experience, the best leaders create a sense of free-wheeling energy & opportunity.

"Let's try some stuff -- and see what happens!"

"Holy cow, who would have thought...!?"

Best,

Pascal

Why Are Learning Organizations So Scarce?

By Pascal Dennis

A billion dollar question...

There are many root causes, which our blog explores at length.

Here's one of the most important:

Our business & professional schools teach us to think in a way inimical to learning.

Here are some of the mental models I picked up at engineering and business schools:

1. We are very smart and successful
   


2. We can manage from a distance, by the numbers
   

Corollary: What can front line people possibly teach us?


3. Everything wraps up nicely - just like an MBA case study
   


4. Problems are bad things - smart, successful managers like us shouldn't have problems!
   


5. If there is a problem, we need to launch an INITIATIVE - the more complex the better
   

Sadly, the present "splitting" we're seeing in society can reinforce such thinking.

"I am very smart and successful - and I just received a massive bonus to prove it!"

Effect?

Hubris, disconnection from the front line (where most value is created), apathy & cynicism in the organization.

In other words, an environment that precludes learning.

Don't want to be misunderstood.

People go to professional and business schools with the best of intentions.

To develop their skills, advance their careers and so on.

But we often get more than we bargained for.

The interesting thing is that these mental models are never articulated.

They are in the atmosphere, invisible, accepted and unquestioned.

The great Henry Mintzberg has said that MBA graduates should have a skull & crossbones tattooed to their foreheads.

I've been trying to remove mine for a couple of decades now...

Best,

Pascal

Yokoten, Meta-cognition and Leadership

By Pascal Dennis

A lovely Japanese word, no?

It rolls off the tongue, and ends with a long, pleasing 'nnnn...'

What's it mean?

Here are some definitions:

Horizontal sharing, best practice sharing, lateral deployment, shared experiential learning...

I like the last one. Shared -- experiential -- learning.

Yokoten entails not just cognition (knowing), which tends to be shorter term, but also meta-cognition.

Meta-cognition entails 'knowing about knowing' and mean answering questions like:

How do I learn?

What do I know?

What do I not know very well?

Great leaders know themselves thereby, and can make conscious decisions.

(The Lean Business System is fundamentally about wakefulness.)

Leaders need to ask these questions of their organization:

How do we learn best?

What do we currently know, and not know, well?

Most important question for leaders:

How do I ensure that we'll continue to learn, after our current leaders retire or move on?

A tough one, to be sure.

The late, great Steve Jobs thought about it a great deal.

The result: Apple University.

More in my next blog.

Cheers,

Pascal