INTRODUCTION
a. ContextInfants do not consult a user's manual when learning to walk. With support from a patient parent, they persevere through numerous clumsy attempts and painful falls until ultimately learning how to stand on their own two feet. This complex task is hardly mastered overnight, but over a succession of small improvements in posture, distribution of weight and balance (Piaget, 1952). In contrast with traditional schooling, learning by doing or experiential learning is an iterative process that applies a process of trial and error to move away from the error state (Kolb, 2014). As such, failure signposts the path towards achievement by means of corrective action. Petroski (1985, p.13) points out that, 'it is not so much that we have learned to walk, as we have learned not to fall'. Morgan's (1903) concept of trial & error was not initially based on human behavior, but derived from research on how animals learn through corrective action. Later, this strategy for learning was seen as applicable to human practice (Bitterman, 1969). Dewey (2001, p.150) identifies this learn as you go practice as the 'cut and try' phase necessary in gaining experience, and viewed by Baron (2000) as the very basis of problem solving. Von Hippel and Tyr (1995, p.5) delineate multiple stages within this process: trial, failure, learning, revision and re-trial, thereby revealing greater complexity within experiential learning. The title I have chosen for my research project: Trial & Failure, was a naming which Morgan had originally considered (Thorpe, 1979). Whereas he viewed error as synonymous with failure, I have adopted a more behaviorist perception of error as a stimulus for growth (Stangor and Walinga, 2014).
Failure can be related to a wide range of situations, where its definition may vary slightly within a specific context, but for the purpose of this project, I define it as outcomes that fall short of expectations. This is intentionally broad and unspecific, as the goal is not to solve for a particular type of failure, but to enable institutional learning from a vast array of flubs, flops, and fiascos that regularly transpire within any organization. So while the term failure is used frequently within this research, it is in no way limited to massive screw-ups, and may apply equally to common mistakes which can potentially provide valuable lessons. In my effort to reconceptualize failure as learning, I invite readers to go along with this playful provocation and substitute the term learn in place of fail, in their daily lives, to see how it may alter the negative reaction associated with failure.
b. Purpose
This paper constitutes the final submission for a master’s degree in Digital Experience Design (DXD) at Hyper Island, an alternative school which is based on an alternative teaching methodology that foregoes the traditional practice of employing lecturers and textbooks. Instead, students learn by doing. Within our program, this project is referred to as an Industry Research Project (IRP), whose central aim is to challenge current practices within a company. While the research must adhere to academic standards, I approach this task as a designer/researcher who is tasked to create an intervention promoting innovation by reformulating an organization's relationship with failure. The IRP provides an opportunity to apply my background in communication design to solve a business relevant issue of my industry partner.
Central to this research is the concept of failing forward, where failure is reframed as an asset. I have explored this concept through interviews with smaller businesses and startups, by consulting with organizational behavior experts and by working to solve an actual problem faced by a multinational company. Synthesis of the data gathered is used to frame a conceptual challenge, for which a design solution is trialed within my case study.
Several key benefits associated with an acceptance of failure are learning, innovation and resilience. Company attributes supporting learning from failure are a culture of trust, tolerance for risk and ongoing feedback. Insights derived from my research inform the design of a card deck which celebrates knowledge obtained both from success and failure, in a way that preserves, and provides easy access to hard learned lessons.
c. Significance
With the increased rate of technological change, doing things the way they have always been done is a losing strategy for long term survival (Briggs, 2020). Considering just how few of last century’s leading companies are still viable, Petroski (2012), cautions that prior success is a poor indication of a successful future, so that maintaining the status quo is in fact quite risky. Similarly Provera, Montefusco and Canato (2010) question the value of best practices, which apply what worked prior to an uncertain future. Rather than maintaining course, leading edge companies look to innovation as a means to remain relevant, while escaping what Kim and Mauborgne (1999) refer to as red ocean, from intense and bloody competition.
My interest in reframing failure as opportunity stems from observation of the design thinking methodology, where iteration is used to enhance design. After a few projects, it became apparent that experimentation is not for the light hearted, as it results in only intermittent success, but routine failure. In order to understand how organizations persevere, I reached out to a several new and small businesses, who must fumble their way through unfamiliar territory. Underlying the errors made within nascent ventures, is the process of learning by doing. Dewey (2001, p192) views action as the basis of learning, where 'primary or initial subject matter always exists as matter of an active doing’. Levitt and March (1988) establish that doing prompts mastery by providing the practice element in the learning affirmation practice makes perfect. A variety of learning strategies, including trial & error, error based learning, experiential learning and learning by doing are all based on learning from failure.
The premise of this paper is to expose aversion to failure as a weakness that stifles innovation. Moreover, a "how things are done around here" mentality stands in the way of progress. Playing safe is a short term strategy that diminishes long term resilience against external threats. Embracing failure seems to run directly against human nature, so what I propose is a less radical paradigm shift by encouraging learning within the workplace. I am in no way suggesting that my small solution will bring upon a change in the culture of large organizations like my case study, but is an attempt to reconsider the binary equation of success vs. failure. The significance of my design intervention is that with a small gesture, an organization can subtly begin to encourage a new mindset which overcomes the tendency to sidestep failure, while refreshing memories of prior lessons learned.
d. Overview
The project begins with a deep dive of academic literature on the broader topic of failure and more specifically on error based learning. Later, I return to research new concepts raised during expert interviews. Primary research begins with a quick survey to test the relevance of this topic, followed by interviews with several small enterprises and startups. Next, I consult with organizational learning experts to learn about strategies companies actually utilize which differ from academia. I am introduced to the need for trust and feedback to facilitate error based learning within an organizational setting. Within my case study, several IKEA managers alerted me to organizational learning hurdles they face, uncovering unmet needs that direct the design solution I propose. Following presentation of my intervention:I elicit feedback on my learning deck, to determine areas for improvement.
e. Design challenge
Key findings from multiple data sets collected reveal an overarching theme on the development of culture that supports experimentation and sharing knowledge. This frames the design challenge:
How might organizations promote a knowledge culture that
supports experimental practice which learns from it's mistakes?
I set this challenge by approaching a large scale organization that does not promote the fail-fast ethos as a motivation for growth, to understand how failure is conceptualized, communicated and learned from. What I wish to determine is if techniques employed by agile start-up culture are transferable to more traditional and structured environment.
f. Case study
IKEA was selected in part due to it being the dominant employer in my region of Sweden and where I have direct access to several managers who agreed to participate, but also due to the compelling business case it provides. The home furnishings giant is a household name, with a presence in 52 countries. As a young company, they disrupted the furniture industry, decimating a long tradition of handcrafted Swedish furniture, to eventually become the largest furniture manufacturer worldwide (Stenebo, J., 2010). Over the 77 years since IKEA was established, they have introduced many retail innovations, most notably: assemble at home flat-packed furniture, the maze layout of their stores, FRAKTA (Swedish for carry) blue bags and as an ambassador of Swedish culture worldwide. While they strive to maintain a timeless image, like other legacy organizations, they now face an unparalleled challenge to remain relevant in an increasingly digital marketplace. In recognition of the enduring shift to e-commerce, 2020 marks the last year of their signature catalog which has been published since 1951 and circulated to 200 million people worldwide (Chappell, 2020). IKEA’s organizational culture demonstrates time honored values that are proudly hung on the company walls, referenced in internal communication, and which can be recited verbatim by employees. While many consumers associate IKEA with value for money, and indeed, cost consciousness is one of the company core tenets, other values support a culture that is pragmatic, open to new ways and which thinks differently. The company’s founder, Ingvar Komprad declared 'IKEA is not like other companies and we don’t want to be. We like to question existing solutions, think in unconventional ways, experiment and dare to make mistakes – always for a good reason' (About.ikea.com, 2020). His words inspired me to learn how IKEA conceptualizes and learns from mistakes.