Failure is a Requirement for Innovation

By Al Norval (bio)

As the parent of two children, I often found myself trying to protect my kids from failure. As I reflect back on that now, I’m not sure I always made the right decisions in doing so. How could I expect my kids to learn if they never experienced failure. Even more difficult, how do I get them to be more comfortable with failure. Anyway, more on the dilemmas of parenting in another blog.

The same principle holds true in Lean as we apply the Scientific Method to problem solving. In the scientific method we set out a hypothesis and then run experiments to test our thinking. The test needs to be binary – it either succeeds in which case we implement and standardize our countermeasure or it fails in which case we need to develop another countermeasure.

The key to the scientific method is that we learn something in both cases which is why it is critical for organizational learning. Not only do we learn when we succeed but we learn how not to do things when we fail. In fact, many times success only comes after repeated failure. Thomas Edison, one of the greatest inventors of all time, is a great example of someone who embodied this principle.

But what happens if we apply the scientific method, develop a hypothesis and run an experiment on things we already know and understand?

Result – we can follow the methodology but no organizational learning occurs.

To learn we need to run experiments and test things where we don’t know the outcome. This leads to the mantra:

“Experiment, Fail, Experiment again, Fail Again but this time Fail better”

Failing better means we’re learning. We’re learning what doesn’t work which means we’re closer to learning what will work. This learning allows us to develop more creative and innovative countermeasures to address the problem. Combine this with “Fail Fast” and we have the formula for rapid innovation within organizations. As a side note, “Failing Fast” doesn’t necessarily help an organization if they aren’t learning from their failures.

For leaders this means becoming comfortable with failures, encouraging teams to try new things and ensuring the salient learning points are captured from the experiments.

Doing so will help ensure organizational success and wise leaders know, it’s only a thin line that separates success from failure.

Cheers

Al


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

KAIZEN – Small Changes vs. Monster Projects
Is Inventory a waste or a cover-up of deeper waste?
7 Basic Quality Tools – Are they underrated?
What Does Leader as a Teacher Really Mean?

Failure is a Requirement for Innovation

By Al Norval

As the parent of two children, I often found myself trying to protect my kids from failure. As I reflect back on that now, I’m not sure I always made the right decisions in doing so. How could I expect my kids to learn if they never experienced failure. Even more difficult, how do I get them to be more comfortable with failure. Anyway, more on the dilemmas of parenting in another blog.

The same principle holds true in Lean as we apply the Scientific Method to problem solving. In the scientific method we set out a hypothesis and then run experiments to test our thinking. The test needs to be binary – it either succeeds in which case we implement and standardize our countermeasure or it fails in which case we need to develop another countermeasure.

The key to the scientific method is that we learn something in both cases which is why it is critical for organizational learning. Not only do we learn when we succeed but we learn how not to do things when we fail. In fact, many times success only comes after repeated failure. Thomas Edison, one of the greatest inventors of all time, is a great example of someone who embodied this principle.

But what happens if we apply the scientific method, develop a hypothesis and run an experiment on things we already know and understand?

Result – we can follow the methodology but no organizational learning occurs.

To learn we need to run experiments and test things where we don’t know the outcome. This leads to the mantra:

“Experiment, Fail, Experiment again, Fail Again but this time Fail better”

Failing better means we’re learning. We’re learning what doesn’t work which means we’re closer to learning what will work. This learning allows us to develop more creative and innovative countermeasures to address the problem. Combine this with “Fail Fast” and we have the formula for rapid innovation within organizations. As a side note, “Failing Fast” doesn’t necessarily help an organization if they aren’t learning from their failures.

For leaders this means becoming comfortable with failures, encouraging teams to try new things and ensuring the salient learning points are captured from the experiments.

Doing so will help ensure organizational success and wise leaders know, it’s only a thin line that separates success from failure.

Cheers

Lean Design is Hard Work

By Al Norval

I was talking to a VP of Research recently who espoused the idea that “You can’t schedule inventions”. While I agree with him, he went on to say “Therefore, there is no merit in applying lean to design work”. That’s the part I disagree with him on. While the odd invention happens in a flash of brilliance most are the result of tirelessly applying the scientific method. For every discovery of penicillin as moldy bread there are a hundred others that are the result of a process of experimentation and testing the results against a hypothesis.

Experimentation, testing and trialing are processes and all processes are made up of both value added and non-value added steps. In design processes, like most processes, the vast majority of the lead-time is waste. Lean enables the elimination of waste in these processes so the time to cycle through these processes is reduced. The cycle time for an experiment may be reduced from 4 weeks to 2 weeks and eventually to 1 week. While no one can predict how many experimental cycles will be needed, what is certain is that the shorter the experimental cycle, the faster we learn and the faster we’ll reach our end goal.

Thomas Edison had a wonderful quote that captures this beautifully.

“None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.”
– Thomas Alva Edison

Using lean in design work allows us to reduce the amount of perspiration required.

Design is hard work. Using lean to eliminate waste in design processes allows us to focus more of our energy on things that truly drive value add to our customers. Isn’t that the purpose of design in the first place?

Cheers