Asked about his repeated failure to devise an electric light, Thomas Edison supposedly said something like this: "I have not failed 10,000 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work." There are disputes about the exact phrasing he used, but the gist of his message is clear: there is some value in failure.
Although his claim is valid, Edison certainly didn't set out to find those 10,000 ways that don't work. That's why his comment is somewhat humorous.
It's an example of reframing — the process of altering how we view concepts, situations, conditions, or events, usually by changing how we view the importance of contextual elements. In the example above, Edison emphasizes the often-ignored value of knowing which candidate solutions don't work.
Although reframing is helpful when we fail, succeeding is even better. Here are three tips for avoiding the need to reframe failure.
- Design the approach to yield value independent of outcome
- Although all efforts have (or should have) primary objectives, we can sometimes design our efforts so that failure to achieve the primary objective inherently contributes to a different success. For example, if Approach A fails, but Approach B can use much of the knowledge or infrastructure generated by having attempted A, then the failure of A leaves us in good position for B.
- Intentionally interlocking solution approaches in this manner might require attempting a less-favored approach first, but the risk management benefits of inverted order can be attractive enough to make inversion sensible.
- Define multiple objectives
- Defining multiple objectives from the outset creates multiple opportunities for success, even if some objectives are more important than others. For example, in a proposal effort, winning the contract is the obvious primary objective. But making the cut to the final short list might also be an achievement, if we're employing process improvements and simultaneously studying their effects on proposal efforts.
- Having multiple Although reframing is
helpful when we fail,
succeeding is
even betterobjectives generates value even if the primary objective isn't realized. Articulating them in advance makes reframing an undesirable primary outcome less necessary, because success in achieving the secondary objectives is so evident. - Shorten the goal horizon
- Primary objectives that are achievable only after large-scale investments of resources and time tend to be less certain, because predicting outcomes of complex activities over long time scales is difficult. And with elevated levels of uncertainty come decreased probabilities of success.
- By setting objectives that are achievable on shorter time scales, adjustments for unforeseen events, based on what we learn along the way, become more achievable. The learning then becomes part of the outcome, which is a success in itself. And we can apply that learning to the next set of shorter-range objectives.
All three of these tactics make available options that teams might not otherwise notice. What options have so far escaped your notice? Top Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Project Management:
- Remote Facilitation in Synchronous Contexts: II
- Facilitators of synchronous distributed meetings — meetings that occur in real time, via telephone
or video — encounter problems that facilitators of face-to-face meetings do not. Here's Part II
of a little catalog of those problems, and some suggestions for addressing them.
- Personnel-Sensitive Risks: II
- Personnel-sensitive risks are risks that are difficult to discuss openly. Open discussion could infringe
on someone's privacy, or lead to hurt feelings, or to toxic politics or toxic conflict. If we can't
discuss them openly, how can we deal with them?
- The Risks of Too Many Projects: I
- Some organizations try to run too many development projects at once. Whether developing new offerings,
or working to improve the organization itself, taking on too many projects can defocus the organization
and depress performance.
- Should We Do This?
- Answering the question, "Should we do this?" is among the more difficult decisions organizational
leaders must make. Weinberger's Six Tests provide a framework for making these decisions. Careful application
of the framework can prevent disasters.
- Vendor Mismanagement
- When we outsource knowledge work to vendors, we expect to achieve the desired result with less risk
and uncertainty than if we did the work ourselves. But mission creep, mission retrenchment and employee
capture can lead to less welcome results.
See also Project Management and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 3: Recapping Factioned Meetings
- A factioned meeting is one in which participants identify more closely with their factions, rather than with the meeting as a whole. Agreements reached in such meetings are at risk of instability as participants maneuver for advantage after the meeting. Available here and by RSS on April 3.
- And on April 10: Managing Dunning-Kruger Risk
- A cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect can create risk for organizational missions that require expertise beyond the range of knowledge and experience of decision-makers. They might misjudge the organization's capacity to execute the mission successfully. They might even be unaware of the risk of so misjudging. Available here and by RSS on April 10.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed