Photo: diegofuego via Flickr
In invention, there will always be failures. Substances won’t mix as planned, or a resulting substance will come out with very different properties than expected.For people who are trying to invent a substance that achieves a very specific goal, it’s very tempting to throw those “failures” out and start again from scratch. Which makes sense from a business perspective.
But from an innovation standpoint, that might be a big mistake. Failures can become wildly successful – if they are just put in the right area!
In 1968, a chemist at 3M failed miserably when he tried to develop a stronger adhesive. The glue was strong enough to hold papers together, but it was easy to peel them apart - not at all what the inventor had been trying to achieve!
If you feel that you've heard this story before, you're probably right. That failed adhesive is the glue used in Post-Its and is probably one of the most famous failure-to-success stories out there.
On the other hand, you've probably never heard the story of the failed refrigerant (the gas used in refrigerators) that spread 'round the world.
In 1938, a chemist at DuPont was trying out a new Freon gas combination when he ran into a problem: the chemicals he'd combined not only had zero cooling properties, they didn't even make a gas! (Whoops!) Instead, he had a very slippery, non-corrosive, totally-inert plastic powder.
But instead of throwing out his mistake, he tested its properties. DuPont also promoted the powder and experimented with it themselves. And the powder took off. It was an important component used in building the first nuclear bombs, it's been blasted into space, put into the human body, worn on Mount Everest, used in building bridges and even cooked on.
What was that horrible failure of a refrigerant? Dupont named it Teflon.
Both of those inventions were miserable failures in the context in which they were invented. But they've both become amazing successes. What made the difference was that the inventors didn't write off a result of their experimentation. Instead of throwing it out and forgetting, they took note of the unique properties of their invention, and found a context where that invention excelled.
Something to think about, isn't it?

Should we wait for good fortune to bring about a lucky accident that will awaken a latent need we were not previously aware of? Is that how we should plan our new product development pipeline?
Or is it possible to generate an imaginary malfunction and explore its potential consequences and benefits?
By using a structured procedure, called Function Follows Form, which works by (virtually) manipulating an existing product to create mutations similar to those created in accidents, we can produce a variety of interesting new forms. Then, through a series of filters (marketing and implementation) we can determine which of these forms could have real market value.
So, whoever said “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”?
Go ahead, break it – ruin it – let it get moldy – fill it with air – fry it in grease! You never know where you may end up – but it is surely worth a shot!
Posted by: Michalee | March 10, 2010 at 01:56 AM
I had an experience of this last year. I found and old song I had written a year before that I had given up on.
I gave up because the song felt too sad and serious. But that day when I suddenly found the text again, I was in a good mood and decided to give another go at the music.
In this way I created a fun happy song with a more serious text and it turned out to be a really interesting mix of "two worlds".
Even thought the theme was important, it reminded me of not being too serious about it and could also laugh at the situation.
Thanks for the post!
Posted by: Samuel | May 03, 2010 at 01:05 PM
Another one to add to the list is paper towels. It seems there was a bad run of paper that turned out fluffy rather than smooth. Instead of throwing it away they found another use for it. Paper towels created from an accident.
Check out my site please www.riseteck.com. It's about ideas.
Posted by: Roger Richardson | May 17, 2010 at 01:33 PM