The course of action:
The intention was to build a properly functioning rocket as quickly as possible which could compete with The Soviet Union’s Sputnik. They wanted to put a lot of money into the project in a short amount of time so that a good, competitive rocket could be built as quickly as possible.
The result:
22 unsuccessful training flights. The rocket just did not want to function properly.
The lesson:
They did not reflect on it fundamentally. There seemed to be a different defect 22 times. The same error did not appear more than once. Only when they performed an in-depth investigation of the entire set up of the program did they achieve a successful flight. Making repairs alone was therefore not sufficient.
Further:
The program leader was very clear when he said; “Failure analysis is basically research, when you get down to it. You recover and learn from mistakes; you don’t do that with success.”
Published by:
S. J. Hogenbirk
OTHER BRILLIANT FAILURES
Winner Jury award OS 2010 – Vredeseilanden – Credit for Cooperatives in Congo
The course of action: To provide loan capital to cooperatives for purchasing and gathering crops. 1. Vredeseilanden distributed loan capital to be used at the cooperatives’ disposal. Initial loans, however, were not paid back. [...]
The Olympic 10.000 meters from Sven Kramer in Vancouver (2010)
The intention to achieve Gold at the Olympics 10.000 meter in Vancouver. The approach Kemkers and Kramer worked together on a thorough preparation based on: 6 years of intensive collaboration and resulted in countless [...]
Aruba Public Health Inspectorate and LHM Diagnostics win the Brilliant Healthcare Failures Awards 2023
On 13 September jl. The Brilliant Failure Awards were presented for the ninth time during a festive event at Zilveren Kruis Achmea in Leiden.