Is it ever really OK to fail?
At many product or even technology meetups we honour the fail. Whether that be a fail that results in a lesson learnt, an early cord cut to salvage any more funds spent on a derailed plan or even a shutdown of a startup. In fact, that’s why the Lean Startup method and many Agile frameworks encourage an MVP.
But is this a reality in practice?
In large organisations, sometimes initiatives are signed off at an early stage. Although there’s flexibility to shift or to discover a solution to the customer problem within the lower level detail, it’s often a position where to some degree an overarching delivery plan is set. Whether that be for a selected tool, roll out to a new group of market customers or a piece to fit into a larger program of work.
In those scenarios a fail is sometimes an afterthought. A reflection post-delivery of an output, perhaps where the outcome wasn’t as expected. Whatever the reason, it’s only after a proposed milestone or launch is completed that it’s recognised if it wasn’t the right decision.
That situation reads to me as though perhaps a fail isn’t really OK. Do we need to deliver ‘something’ to check a box / satisfy interested parties, no matter how successful the solution really ends up being?
New information might come to light, perhaps there’s data or other findings that determine the right solution is almost surely not the one that’s mid-build. How often is it that the large initiative would then be pivoted mid-way or even pulled in its entirety, especially when a significant amount of money has already been spent.
Many organisations would be at different levels of maturity from shifting away from project based thinking to become more outcome focused, and this too would be playing a role in this scenario. However, transformation programs are often the perceived best method to deal with a piece of work that is complex requiring a cross section of multiple divisions or groups.
On the other end of the scale (and though there’s many situations in between), in a startup wouldn’t this issue be the same? Investors might be actively watching the spend or progress more closely than that of a big corporate which may have the luxury of added padding to any budget. The pressure of making an idea work by any means could be heightened.
Is it realistic that after a significant spend in this situation too that the original idea could simply end up binned?
Of course, it’s important to highlight when you can see your team or organisation is on the wrong path and articulate why with more than your gut feel. Let’s say this was done, would the concern of reputation impact or wasted money spent just to fail before a planned launch outweigh the wasted time or cost to continue down a black hole?
Existing articles you can find around Google’s failed products and their lifespan highlights how important it is to recognise and mitigate a fail. But I wonder if the reality for those outside of the Big four technology companies still very different.
I’d be keen to hear any stories below of experiences on the matter if anyone is willing to share. For no reason other than curiosity!
