This summer I visited NASA Space Center in Houston, Texas. I was struck by the driving principle of the US space program: "Failure is not an option". When touring the museum it was easy to see why that motto was so important. Some of the best and brightest were putting their lives in the hands of thousands of people involved in the engineering, execution, and management of these custom systems that were being sent into the harshest environments.
On the other hand, I have some friends at SpaceX and at a lunch several months ago I asked one of them what was the tolerated failure rate during SpaceX development. Their answer? 80%. They described the vision of SpaceX, not to make a reusable rocket but to make a machine with a button to make a reusable rocket. The juxtaposition in those two approaches, both highly admired, really made me think.
Risk, of course, is present in both approaches. At NASA when risk wasn't measured correctly it cost lives. At SpaceX risk is baked into the process although at significant cost but built for the long term.
During my career in technology transformation I've always encouraged a "fail quick" mentality. It allowed for lots of experimentation while managing and measuring the risk involved in change.
So where does your organization land? Is failure ever an option? If not, you probably aren't innovating for the short or long term. Risk of failure will always be present no matter your approach, so what's your strategy?
Comments