GUEST POST from Pete Foley

This capture from a recent SpaceX tweet is a stunning visual example of smart innovation and simplification. 

While I’m not even close to being a rocket scientist, and so am far from familiar with all of the technical details, I’ve heard that breakthroughs incorporated into this include innovative sensor design that allows for streamlined feedback loops. But this goes beyond just impressive technical innovation.   To innovate at this level requires organizational and cultural flexibility as well as technical brilliance. That latter flexibility is probably far more broadly transferable and adoptable than specific advances in rocket science, and hence more useful to the broader innovation community. So let’s dig a little deeper into that space.

Secret Sauce?  Organizationally SpaceX is well known for less formal hierarchies, passion, ownership and engineers working on the production floor.  This hands on approach creates a different, but important kind of feedback, while passion feeds intrinsic motivation, ownership and engagement, which is so critical to consistent innovation. 

Learning from Failure – An Innovation Superpower?  But perhaps most important of all is the innovation culture. Within SpaceX there is a very clear willingness to experiment and learn from failure.  Not lip service, or the sometimes half-hearted embrace of failure often found in large, bureaucratic organizations, where rewards and career progression often doesn’t reflect the mantra of learning by failing.  This is an authentic willingness to publicly treat productive failure of individual launches as a learning success for the program, and to reward productive failure and appropriate risk taking.  Of course, it’s not always easy to walk the talk of celebrating failure, especially in spacecraft design, where failures are often spectacular, public, and visual gold for the media.  And no doubt this is compounded by Musk’s controversial public profile, where media and social media are often only too keen to highlight failures.  But the visual of Raptor 3 is for me a compelling advertisement for authentically embedding learning by failure deeply into the DNA of an innovative organization. 

Stretch Goals:  Musk is famous for, and sometimes ridiculed for setting ambitious stretch goals, and for not always achieving them.   But in a culture where failure is tolerated, or if done right, celebrated, missing a stretch goal is not a problem, especially if it propelled innovation along at a pace that goes beyond conventional expectation.    

Challenging Legacy and ‘Givens’:  Culturally, this kind of radical simplification requires the systematic challenge of givens that were part of previous iterations.  You cannot make these kind of innovation leaps unless you are both willing and able to discard legacy technical and organizational structures.  

At risk of kicking Boeing while it is down, it is hard not to contrast SpaceX with Boeing, whose space (and commercial aviation) program is very publicly floundering, and facing the potentially humiliating prospect of needing rescue from the more agile SpaceX program. 

Innovation Plaque:  But in the spirit of learning from failure, if we look a bit deeper, perhaps it should not be a surprise that Boeing are struggling to keep up. They have a long, storied, and successful history as a leader in aerospace.  But history and leadership can be a blessing and a curse, as I know from P&G. It brings experience, but also bureaucracy, rigid systems, and deeply rooted culture that may or may not be optimum for managing change.  Deep institutional knowledge can be a similar mixed blessing.  It of course allows easy access to in-domain experience, and is key to not repeating past mistakes, or making naïve errors.  But is also comes with an inherent bias towards traditional solutions, and technologies.  Perhaps even more important is the organizationally remembered pain of past failures, especially if a ‘learn by failure’ culture isn’t fully embraced.  Failure is good at telling us what didn’t work, and plays an important role in putting processes in place that help us to avoid repeating errors.  But over time these ‘defensive’ processes can build up like plaque in an artery, making it difficult to push cutting edge technologies or radical changes through the system.

Balance is everything.  Nobody wants to be the Space Cowboy.  Space exploration is expensive, and risks the lives of some extraordinarily brave people.  Getting the balance between risk taking and the right kind of failure is even more critical than in most other contexts. But SpaceX are doing it right, certainly until now. Whatever the technical details, the impact on speed, efficiency and $$ behind the simplification of Raptor 3 is stunning.  I suspect that ultimately reliability and efficiency will also likely helped by increased simplicity.  But it’s a delicate line.  The aforementioned ‘plaque’ does slow the process, but done right, it can also prevent unnecessary failure.   It’s important to be lean, but  not ‘slice the salami’ too thin.  Great innovation teams mix diverse experience, backgrounds and personalities for this reason.  We need the cynic as well as the gung-ho risk taker.  For SpaceX, so far, so good, but it’s important that they don’t become over confident.  

The Elon Musk Factor:  For anyone who hasn’t noticed. Musk has become a somewhat controversial figure of late. But even if you dislike him, you can still learn from him, and as innovators, I don’t think we can afford not to. He is the most effective innovator, or at least innovation leader for at least a generation. The teams he puts together are brilliant at challenging ‘givens’, and breaking out of legacy constraints and the ‘ghosts of evolution’. We see it across the SpaceX design, not just the engine, but also the launch systems, recycling of parts, etc. We also see an analogous innovation strategy in the way Tesla cars so dramatically challenged so many givens in the auto industry, or the ‘Boring company in my hometown of Las Vegas.

Ghosts of Evolution I’d mentioned the challenges of legacy designs and legacy constraints. I think this is central to SpaceX’s success, and so I think it’s worth going a little deeper on this topic.  Every technology, and every living thing on our planet comes with its own ghosts.   They are why humans have a literal blind-spot in our vision, why our bodies pleasure centers are co-located with our effluent outlets, and why the close proximity of our air and liquid/solid intakes lead to thousands of choking deaths every year. Nature is largely stuck with incrementally building on top of past designs, often leading to the types of inefficiency described above. Another example is the Pronghorn antelope that lives in my adopted American West. It can achieve speeds of close to 90 mph. This is impressive, but vastly over-designed and inefficient for it’s current environment. But it is a legacy design, evolved at a time when it was predated upon by long extinct North American Cheetah. It cannot simply undo that capability now that it’s no longer useful. So far, it’s survived this disadvantage, but it is vulnerable to both competition and changing environment simply because it is over-designed.

Bio-Inspiration:  I’ve long believed we can learn a great deal from nature and bio-inspired design, but sometimes learning what not to do is as useful as ‘stealing’ usable insights. It’s OK to love nature, but also acknowledge that evolution has far more failures than successes. There are far, far more extinct species than living ones.  And virtually every one was either too specialized, or lacked the ability to pivot and adapt in the face of changing context.  

As innovators, we have unique option of creating totally new 2.0 designs, and challenging the often unarticulated givens that are held within a category. And we have the option of changing our culture and organizational structures too.  But often we fail do so because we are individually or organizationally blind to legacy elements that are implicitly part of our assumptions for a category or a company.  The fish doesn’t see the water, or at least not until it’s dangling from a hook. By then it’s too late.   Whatever you think of Musk, he’s taught us it is possible to create innovation cultures that challenge legacy designs extremely effectively.  It’s a lesson worth learning

Image credits: Twitter (via SpaceX)

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.