The Lyncinerator on… Failure
September 20, 2017 Leave a comment
Don’t get me started. Stuck on an interminably delayed flight, I leafed through the airline magazine. An article on a new Museum of Failure in Sweden caught my eye. “Only in Scandinavia” I thought, cynically. But it made interesting reading. The curator is a psychologist and innovation researcher who got fed up with hearing people talk only about success and not the failures that lay behind it, his view is that development only comes through learning from failure. The fact that the museum is partly funded by the Swedish governmental department that supports industrial R&D suggests that he is not the only one to think this way. The museum demonstrates products and services that did not take off, and explains some of the reasons why. It was a thought provoking and informative article.
This blog was written by Lynne Ceeney, Technical Director at BSRIA
I talked to some colleagues about the museum and the article, and laughingly said I would write a blog titled “BSRIA is good at failure”. I’m sure you can imagine the raised eyebrows, and concerns that this could be misconstrued. And in a world of short tweets and clickbait headlines this is a justified concern. But for an industry like ours, understanding and learning from failure is really important, and maybe we don’t talk about failure enough.
In-use failure of safety critical components and elements simply should not happen. That’s what testing and inspection are for, although we know that sadly, these are not fail-safe. But talking about those failures is imperative. The causes of these failures are shared openly and quickly, so that future incidents can be prevented. Public enquiries are one route, but for less public failures, as an industry we need to look at the “no blame” culture that the aviation industry has introduced. (More correctly perhaps, it’s a “just” culture – where people are rewarded for providing safely related failure information. Deliberately unsafe actions or decisions are still penalised). If this type of safety critical failure is declared and investigated, it can and should prevent future incidents. It seems that litigation and insurance may get in the way of the necessary “no blame / just” culture, and there is a definite need for an industry-wide approach to investigate and remedy this.
But what about failures that only interrupt occupant functioning and are inconvenient? There is a tendency to patch or fix, or to simply replace, and to move on without capturing learning. This is one of the points where BSRIA comes into its own. Our Problem Investigation team get to see multiple failures in different buildings, delivered and managed by different teams. This has two consequences: (1) we are quick at spotting the cause of problems which cannot be simply identified by front line repair teams because we know where to look with our analytics, so front line teams can fix the problem efficiently, and (2) we are able to upcycle our learning into publications, guidance and training to pass preventative knowledge to the industry. A good example of this is our work on pipework corrosion, which we have been able to investigate in some depth and include our learnings in guidance for water commissioning. This helps optimise the performance of existing buildings, but importantly we can also influence the design of the next generation of components and buildings. To increase our impact, we need to encourage more failures to be reported and investigated so that we can better understand trends and problems, and report back to the industry as to how to remedy them. This too requires an industry culture that recognises the value of learning from failure.
And of course innovation doesn’t happen without failure. There are of course degrees of failure (the Museum features frozen pizza marketed under the brand of a toothpaste company, I would have loved to have listened to the strategy meeting for that!). Controlled failure is useful – in our test laboratories we help establish parameters for new products through testing prototypes, and then we test the end product on behalf of the manufacturer. We move beyond labs though, and we monitor technologies in the real world, in occupied buildings, to see what happens when expert and non-expert users are let loose on equipment and to see how it performs and what doesn’t work so well. All useful data for the next iteration of designs, products and systems.
So BSRIA is pretty good at failure – investigation, remedy and recommendation for prevention. And the industry clearly benefits from reporting, investigating and talking about failure. So we need to think about how we can encourage this culturally, and how to process and use what we find.
The flight, incidentally, was very delayed. I read the whole magazine. And I couldn’t blame the pilot, it was a weather issue. But the failure to deliver on board food because they had sold out – well that was a failure too far, don’t get me started…
The Lyncinerator, September 2017.
BSRIA
donnatoomeybsriacouk
Yussuf A