Difference between revisions of "Learning from failure"

From Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Reverse22 (talk) to last revision by Waltcrawford)
Line 17: Line 17:
Why am I not surprised?
Why am I not surprised?
--[[User:Waltcrawford|Waltcrawford]] 12:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
--[[User:Waltcrawford|Waltcrawford]] 12:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
[http://www.prlog.org/11289974-phone-number-lookup-verizon-phone-number-reverse-lookup-to-get-information-you-need-quickly.html reverse lookup]
[http://thetvtopc.com/Reverse_Cell_Phone_Lookup_Number reverse phone lookup]

Latest revision as of 02:12, 3 January 2012

Ideally, we can learn more from failure than we can from success. Are we (you) willing to share failures?

I know: The word itself makes you nervous. They aren't failures. They're learning experiences. They're premature innovations. They're qualified successes.

Here's the definition I'm using:

Failure:An initiative or process that was either terminated before a planned ending date or that failed to achieve the stated goals.

Contributions? I'll create a "Failure" subcategory when (if) there are any pages that start here...

There's also a Learning from failure page on the Library Leadership Network. --Waltcrawford 12:41, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

And, in a mere three months with publicity elsewhere, we've seen the number of shared failures I was more-or-less expecting here: Zero.

Why am I not surprised? --Waltcrawford 12:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)