# How Innovation Happens — Lesson #9: Fail Faster, Learn Faster
By 

## Article Content
I've been covering the link between future trends and innovation strategies for 30+ years. I went back through my blog posts, stretching to 2002, to dig out the nuggets of innovation insight I've discovered along the way. This series revisits those stories, tests what still holds up, and turns them into practical lessons for what comes next. "Innovators fail fast. Innovators who fail fast learn faster." I've come back to this idea repeatedly in my work because the mindset behind innovation usually changes before the results do. What people notice, question, challenge, and act on determines how ready they are for what comes next. Failure is useful only when it produces learning. That distinction matters. In one post I described a global company facing a whirlwind of change in branding, infrastructure, competition, business models, customer loyalty and expectations. In that kind of environment, the advantage does not go to the organization that never makes a mistake. It goes to the organization that can make smaller mistakes, discover them quickly, extract the lesson, and adjust before the market moves again. Fast failure is not an excuse for sloppy work. It is a discipline of shortening the distance between assumption and evidence. The faster the market, the more important that learning loop becomes. So what does that mean in practice? It means challenging the assumption, habit, or hesitation that is keeping you anchored to the present. Here are three places to start. Action Items: Shorten one project cycle so you can get evidence sooner. Require every failed experiment to produce a written learning. Ask whether your culture punishes failure more severely than it punishes slow learning. Explore the full How Innovation Happens series. Real-World Examples These researched examples show the lesson at work in the real world. Lane County: The internal idea channel that nobody wanted to use A government team in Oregon's Lane County wanted to make it easier for employees in different departments to exchange ideas and improve internal processes. A continuously available digital Ideas Channel sounded like an obvious first move. Central Services staff launched a limited trial and seeded it with discussion prompts. Very few people participated. Rather than blame staff for lacking initiative or spend months promoting the channel, the team examined what the unsuccessful experiment revealed. In a case documented by the Centre for Public Impact, employees described the new channel as just one more notification in an already crowded workday. The team used a structured reflection exercise to distinguish what had gone wrong from what might still be useful. It concluded that employees did want to learn from one another, but that a permanent chat channel was the wrong format. The group pivoted toward live tutorial sessions where colleagues could explain behind-the-scenes processes, ask questions and share solutions in a more deliberate setting. The original idea failed its actual user test; the underlying need survived. In a bureaucracy where backing away from a launched initiative can look like weakness, the willingness to stop was itself an important success. Why it matters: Failing faster means learning what did not work before your reputation and budget become too invested in defending it. Sources: Mars Pathfinder: The airbag that tore before it could land on Mars In the 1990s, NASA wanted a cheaper way to put a robotic lander on Mars. Instead of relying entirely on an elaborate controlled descent, engineers designed an unusual solution: inflate enormous fabric airbags around the spacecraft and let it bounce across the Martian surface. Before launch, NASA Glenn's predecessor facility in Ohio used a giant vacuum chamber and artificial rocks to reproduce the conditions of impact. Early drops were a discouraging sight. The bags tore open. The team had not simply suffered a bad demonstration; the test exposed that a key assumption about fabric construction was wrong. Engineers redesigned the system, replacing a single heavy layer with multiple lightweight layers, and continued impact testing. NASA's historical account makes the progression clear. On July 4, 1997, Pathfinder reached Mars, touched down inside the protective airbags and bounced across the surface before stopping. Its Sojourner rover subsequently explored the planet. The test failures did not make the mission less rigorous. They made it more reliable by showing what needed to change while engineers still had a chance to change it. A spectacular success story on Mars began with ripped material inside a test facility on Earth. Why it matters: A test that exposes a flawed assumption is producing valuable progress, provided the team is willing to redesign rather than conceal the result. Sources:

---
Source: https://jimcarroll.com/2026/10/how-innovation-happens-lesson-009/