When I ran the research laboratory for our company, I used to say (somewhat facetiously) that 99% of everything we did ended failure. And yet, I considered our efforts a great success. How can this be?

Failure is a word that has very negative connotations in our vocabulary. But if we look at what happens when we fail, we can see a different side to the story. First, all failure is not the same. Failure differs in magnitude, consequence, and information gained. If you bet a million dollars on a stock and the company goes bankrupt the next day – that is a failure of great magnitude (for most of us). However, if you only invested a dollar, you can probably live with the loss.  Either way, you learned something about the stock and the market. As inventors and researchers, we are always probing into the unknown. How will we know something if we don’t try it? Well, again, there is the question of magnitude and consequence. Jumping off a high cliff to test the theory of survivability after impact would constitute a high magnitude of risk and a great consequence of failure. You would certainly learn the answer, but at what cost? However, if you gauge the magnitude of the risk, the consequence of the failure, and what you might learn from the trial; failure can be transformed from a negative to a positive. Sometimes finding out what doesn’t work is as important as finding out what does. Probing to confirm direction is something that inventors and researchers do all the time. This not only puts theory to the test, but also provides new information to reformulate the theory. The key is to take controlled risks – risks that won’t “break the bank” or anything else of great value. The goal is to exceed what you lose in time, money, material, etc. with what you gain in knowledge.

As I said at the beginning of this post, we were extremely successful and yet experienced a “99% failure rate.” What made us successful was the ability to gauge risk as we probed into the unknown, and to learn valuable things that we could then apply to our next efforts. The failures were small but informative; the successes built on those trials were substantial.

Similar Posts

  • Zero Mass Design

    In the early 1980’s Dr. David Thornburg, professor of Design at Stanford University, came up with a concept which he called Zero Mass Design. He proposed categorizing products along two axes. The x-axis ranged from “simplicity” to “complexity” (these were qualitative assessments), and the y-axis charted functionality. Thornburg proposed a “U-shaped” curve. He said that…

  • Trapped by the obvious

    How many times have you been trapped by the obvious when trying to solve a problem? By the obvious, I mean the obvious rational approach or solution that is clearly in front of you. This solution to your problem would be great, except that it doesn’t work. I have certainly fallen into this trap many…

  • Perseverance

    What is the most important trait that an inventor needs to possess?  My answer is that by far, courage is the most important trait. That is, the courage to venture into the unknown and not turn back when things seem uncertain or bad. Along with courage goes perseverance. The ability to persevere through long periods…

  • The Stuxnet virus

    Perhaps one of the greatest examples of innovative thinking in 2010 was the Stuxnet virus. Let me explain. I am not referring to the technical aspects of the virus, which I'm sure were brilliant as well. I am speaking about the idea of creating a computer virus to solve an otherwise intractable problem. The problem…

  • Rifle straps

    My father once told me a great story of how he learned to be an entrepreneur. He was released from the army after World War II and an uncle of his had a business buying up army surplus junk at cheap prices. One of the things he purchased was a large container of rifle slings….