tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4483512935124118544.post5058378886724850721..comments2023-10-12T07:03:25.139-07:00Comments on Dialogue Through Design: Fail often to succeed sooner: Can this idea truly work in development?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17685583986180241131noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4483512935124118544.post-78888528574308727152011-06-08T15:50:49.217-07:002011-06-08T15:50:49.217-07:00Kara - excellent questions. As the EWB's Admi...Kara - excellent questions. As the EWB's Admit Failure project has demonstrated, it's hard for most organizations to admit failure, and so as you point out, it can be even harder when numerous partners are involved. I think you have made a key point about what 'if the entire process permitted failure'. Much of admitting failure is about expectations and consequences. If the expectations fro the beginning were that some failure that didn't have negative health consequences) were permitted and indeed encouraged, you would have a different learning environment.Bonnie Koenighttp://www.goinginternational.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4483512935124118544.post-7645179025821340232011-05-31T00:43:17.207-07:002011-05-31T00:43:17.207-07:00I appreciate your comment as the topic relates to ...I appreciate your comment as the topic relates to business culture. I also value the acknowledgement that there is more than one customer who has a vested interest in the project. While obvious, it can be an interesting experience to navigate in this context and with the "machine" you mention. <br /><br />Perhaps I'm naive but I hope for a day when the machine doesn't get so bogged down and has a means to accept shifts more easily.<br /><br />Sidebar: I just had a conversation with someone who said that a better word might be "Pivot." It suggests we knew there was a problem and shifted direction (instead of outright failure). I'll test it out to see if it fits in this context.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17685583986180241131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4483512935124118544.post-68729175774923111532011-05-29T11:16:54.843-07:002011-05-29T11:16:54.843-07:00Nice post.
I think you raise a problem we all str...Nice post.<br /><br />I think you raise a problem we all struggle with, at least one I struggle with quite often, which is that very few organizations want to risk failing, or worse yet, talk about their failures so others can learn from them.<br /><br />The culture in the business is Fail Fast:<br />http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_26/b4040436.htm<br /><br />And having worked at companies that tried huge top down approaches as well as ones doing much smaller iterative development I can't help but think any organization that thinks it can launch at scale instantly is just deluding themselves.<br /><br />Or worse yet, deluding their donors. <br /><br />Because I think that is the real perversion that is so difficult to escape from, that the customer, in the sense of the person paying for any project, is not the people in need, but rather the donors. And it is far easier to tell your donors you launched a program this quarter that touches thousands than say you iterated on a program and touched a few hundred. It is simply impossible for the donors to know what is truly effective, and it is equally difficult for the organizations to compete for funding while also being truthful of their failures.<br /><br />It is a tough problem, frustratingly so, because I think all involved of course want the best outcomes, and even want to try different approaches but we are all trapped in a machine whose mechanisms we can't control.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com