The term “failing fast” has been around for a long time and is one that I’ve used since the early days of my career. When talking to other developers I’ve never had a problem with it, but using it with business folk has had a different reaction on occasion.
I first came across the term (I believe) when reading Steve Maguire’s excellent book “Writing Solid Code”. In it he describes how letting a process crash at the moment something really bad happens is often more desirable than trying to code defensively, as that just masks the underlying issue. Whilst it sucks for the user they stand less chance of even worse things happening, e.g. silent data corruption. I wrote about my own experiences with this type of coding in “The Cost of Defensive Programming”.
The second context under which I met the “failing fast” term was when reading Michael Nygard’s fabulous book “Release It!” Here he was talking about avoiding queuing or doing work which was ultimately going to be wasteful. For example if you can’t acquire a resource because it is unavailable, it’s better to discover that early and fail then instead of waiting until the end at which point you need to throw work away. Once again I’ve told my own tale around this in “Service Providers Are Interested In Your Timeouts Too”.
The most recent use of “fail fast” I’ve encountered has appeared in relation to the delivery of software projects. In this guise we are talking about how to do just enough work to either prove or disprove that the project is in fact viable. At a smaller scale you could apply the same idea to a spike, which is often one part of a project and used to validate, say, a technical approach.
In essence what we’re saying is that if you’re going to fail, make sure you do it as quickly as possible. By delaying the work that will allow you to decide whether the idea is actually viable runs the risk of so much being done that you fall foul of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Sander Hoogendoorn has a post titled “Failing fast” that talks about this idea in more detail.
As you can see the term has many uses and so I’ve found it quite natural when talking to fellow developers in any of these three contexts to say it – they’ve always understood the real meaning. However when talking to less technical people, such as business folk and higher level managers I’ve found that you can get a different reaction. Instead of latching onto the second word “fast”, they focus on the first word “fail”. What then happens is that the discussion turns into one about “why would we do something where we might fail?”. And “isn’t that a backwards step?”.
At this point you’ve now got explain that failing quickly is really not failing per-se, but actually a successful outcome from a business cost perspective. In essence you’ve already put yourself on the back foot and you’ve potentially lost your audience as they try and work out why this “agile” stuff is beneficial if it means you’re going to fail! Why wouldn’t you just do more analysis up front and avoid failing in the first place?
A more positive sounding way of promoting the idea is instead to focus on the point of the exercise, which is to learn more about the problem. And if we flip the notion of “fast” around and turn it into something the business really understands, money, we can talk about saving it by spending less to get an answer to our question. Also, where failing feels like a backwards step, we generally consider learning to be a cumulative process and therefore it sounds like we’re always making some sort of progress instead.
It’s all just smoke-and-mirrors of course, but in a world where everyone is vying for the company’s money being a little careful with your language may just tip the scales in your favour.