Which is worse:
Spending time analyzing methods, arriving at expected results, possible delays, likely changes on-the-fly, expense of project, and creating processes to achieve your expected result.
OR
Getting an idea on what you want and charging forward, thinking of everything as you go, solving issues as they arrive, and achieving the same result.
The result: Failure.
I categorize myself in the former category rather than the latter. Analytical by nature, I want to make sure I have the solutions ready if a problem arises. Therefore, I am leery of embarking on a project because if it fails, then I have to start all over, and my previous effort is wasted.
And effort = time, which is something you can't make more of. I can "justify" not doing anything because I am being effective with my time, not frivolously wasting it on failures.
But what is failing? And depending on the definition, why is it so bad to fail? Thomas Edision failed. Donald Trump failed. Bill Gates failed. Everyone fails.
Failure needs to be defined differently. It's not always a negative.
Failure: A result that was not expected, whether it was from learning (decision making), different expectations (communication), available knowledge base (data or assumptions), or availability of resources (right tool, right job).
No comments:
Post a Comment