quantmleap

I have addressed previously the thought process according to which the management of failures requires the adoption of a new paradigm.

Two recent articles in HarvardBusiness.Org seem to suggest that this line of thinking is now entering the main stream, with the realisation that the prevailing approach of treating failure with contempt is not positively contributing to…well…anything.

In “When a Project Fails, Who Does Your Company Blame?”, Amy Edmondson makes a number of interesting observations, touching at the heart of our blame-related culture.

Amy argues that there are three types of failures:

A. Failures originating from process deviations, due to operator’s incompetency, lack of attention or (in more extreme cases) deliberate deviation.

B. Failures originating from system breakdowns due to inherent process complexities, execution challenges, or process inadequacies.

C. Failures originating from failed experimentations, due primarily to the high than usual level of uncertainty associated with such endeavours. Examples would include exploratory experiments and hypothesis testing.

In my experience, in the software development domain in which I operate, failures mostly manifest themselves as types A or B with most failures are associated with the inherent uncertainly built into the projects or due to process inadequacies or complex executions.

In “Failure Isn’t Enough“‘ Joshua Gans is addressing issues of innovation in research projects. He suggests that innovation does not happen enough and that if we could soften the failure consequences for individual researchers, more risky experiments would take place.

The relevancy to software development projects lies in the need to allow process changes to be experimented with, and with the realization that fixing a failed or inadequate process requires experimentation on rout to establishing a better one. My observation of organizations suggests that many will choose to not interfere with inadequate processes due to the uncertainty associated with establishing new ones. The fear of establishing a new failed process is standing the the way of fixing existing processes. Joshua’s suggesting for dealing with such fears is simple. Let us simply “soften the failure consequences”.

The message from Amy and Joshua is clear. Cultures and systems that do not overly punish failure will generate more people willing to take risks, and it is these people who will help our organizations fine-tune and improve t

Related posts:

1. Collaboration is an attitude not a a tool
2. If I Could Change The PMP Exam
3. Uncertainty and the Bi-Directionality of Time