“Failing Fast” in Manufacturing

“Failing Fast” in Manufacturing 

Failing Fast — What It Really Means and Why It Matters
Participants: Eric Norton, Research and Early Innovation Manager, and AJ Ganino, Director of Operations, of Bullen Ultrasonics

Q: The phrase “Fail Fast” can sound risky. Doesn’t it imply we’re okay with mistakes or poor quality? 

“Failing fast” doesn’t mean we accept failure in our machine operations or that we have poor quality standards — far from it. 

Some prefer the term learning fast, as it avoids that misconception. “Fail fast” is about accelerating the discovery process so we can innovate more efficiently. In a competitive market, speed matters — faster learning means faster development, which can even pull potential revenue forward. 

We look at “failure” and “risk” differently in this context. Rather than being negative, they’re tools for progress. We intentionally take smaller, calculated risks early on, when it’s less costly, to prevent major failures later on when the stakes are higher. 

This reduces failure in the future because we have better defined the limits of a technology or maybe we have reduced risk in the future because we have developed a more competitive offering. 

Some companies are introducing a digital twin to aid in testing their production environments before actually running a change through. Digital twins could help run through more scenarios faster or even help pilot artificial intelligence (AI) in a safe “sandbox” to understand its value by weighing the pros and cons of introducing an intelligence system to the manufacturing environment beforehand. 

Q: How do you implement a Fail-Fast mindset in a traditional, conservative manufacturing environment? 

That’s where things get tricky — and cultural. 

The bottom line is that the innovation mindset and the traditional manufacturing mindset each have a different relationship with both risk and urgency. With shared resources, there is a tension that has to be balanced for both topics. Maybe itwould be good to better illustrate these challenges: 

1. Risk 

• Manufacturing teams aim to minimize variation, reduce scrap, and protect customers by keeping processes consistent. 

• Innovation teams explore boundaries, take calculated risks, and experiment with new methods to explore next level ideas. 

Both perspectives protect the customer — one through reducing risk by keeping the process stable by reducing scrap and the other by finding disruptive innovation that creates new processes or products and dramatically reducing costs. 

The risk of not innovating is more elusive and less tangible but every bit as real. When we or our customers are against innovation, we face the threat of being left behind by constant market advancements and competitor advancements could run a company out of business or a product out of production. The threat of this future risk can be hard to quantify and forecast which leads to it being commonly overlooked. 

The goal for highly technical companies is to remain competitive in current processes but constantly push for the next breaking technological advancement. 

Falling behind technologically can be as dangerous as a broken part. 

2. Urgency 

Manufacturing runs on tight deadlines — there’s always a truck waiting for parts. Innovation timelines are different: they involve iteration, setbacks, and unknowns. There’s no truck honking, but there’s future business on the line. 

Balancing these competing pressures — immediate production versus long-term innovation — requires clear communication and structured prioritization of shared resources. The more tangible honking horn of the truck waiting for parts can feel more urgent than the eventual loss of a whole stream of business due to failure to innovate. Likewise, parts out the door = correlated revenue but money for innovation may be less cut and dry when the process and outcome is often unknown. 

It can be difficult for innovators to fail fast when their projects always come second fiddle to production. Communicating competing risks is critical. 

Q: Do process improvements for current customers usually take priority over broader innovation projects? 

Often, yes — and that’s part of the challenge. 

Lean, efficient manufacturing doesn’t always play well with “messy” innovation. Innovation can look wasteful in the midst of the daily struggle to get parts out the door. But standing still is risky too — a competitor developing a better process could replace all that production overnight. 

There’s always a balance between: 

1. Today’s production 

2. Improving the current production system 

3. Creating future production systems 

All three are in constant competition for attention and resources. 

Q: Do customers ever resist change or experimentation? 

Absolutely. Some customers prefer not to alter proven processes, fearing downstream impacts. Others expect continuous improvement and cost reductions. 

Generally, customers look to the market to drive innovation, not necessarily each supplier relationship. That said, we’re fortunate to work with partners who collaborate with us on future-oriented innovation projects — they see the value in exploring what’s next together. 

Q: How do you decide what to test “fast” without wasting materials or resources? 

We focus on high-impact unknowns — the steps that pose the greatest risk to a project’s timeline or feasibility. 

Fail-fast thinking pulls these high-risk steps forward so we can learn early. We design tests as minimum viable products (MVPs) — simple, cost-effective, and quick to set up. 

That way, we can afford a few failures without jeopardizing the project’s success or schedule. 

Q: How do you ensure safety and compliance when failing fast? 

We always stay within our safety and regulatory boundaries. Early experiments are done with our compliance standards in mind. However, once we identify a promising direction, we refine the process fully within all compliance standards. 

Failing fast never means skipping safety or quality controls — it means we iterate smarter within those guardrails. 

Q: What cultural changes help support a Fail-Fast mindset? 

People need to feel safe to experiment. 

Stories need to be told in order to get buy in concerning the value of taking risks. We make a point to celebrate lessons learned — even when something doesn’t work. It’s like Thomas Edison’s famous quote: 

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that don’t work.” 

Sharing stories of failure-turned-success helps everyone see the value in taking calculated risks. 

Q: When is Fail-Fast not appropriate? 

When to avoid failing fast: 

• Testing on customer parts without their knowledge or consent 

• There’s no clear hypothesis or goal (“just trying stuff”) 

• Tests are overly complex or resource-heavy 

• Safety risks can’t be mitigated 

Failing fast requires structure and purpose — not chaos. 

Q: What are the biggest benefits of a Fail-Fast approach? 

• Greater agility and faster innovation cycles 

• Stronger, more adaptable teams 

• Empowered employees who take ownership of improvement 

• The ability to pivot quickly to meet changing customer needs 

Q: And what are the risks or drawbacks? 

• Rushed development without proper learning 

• Repeating the same mistakes 

• Volatility from too much change 

• Misalignment with long-term strategy or goals 

Failing fast without reflection is just failing faster — learning must stay at the center. 

Q: How do you measure success or failure in Fail-Fast projects? 

Success starts with clear expectations and quality parameters.
If boundaries are well-defined, we can objectively measure outcomes — good or bad — and learn from them. 

Without clear expectations, we can’t truly measure success or failure. The stronger the boundaries, the easier it is to adopt this mentality. 

Q: What tools or frameworks support a Fail-Fast culture? 

• Simulation: allows safe, fast iteration 

• Rapid feedback loops: involve all stakeholders early and often 

• Defined pass/fail criteria: keep tests focused and measurable 

Q: Any examples of Fail-Fast used well (or poorly) in manufacturing? 

Successful: 

• Automation for real-time monitoring and error detection 

• A culture that empowers employees to experiment safely and share learnings 

• Projects with embedded innovation goals that are on time due to fail fast thinking 

• New technologies brought to market faster 

Unsuccessful: 

• Rushed development without testing 

• Failing to capture or apply lessons learned 

• Excessive change that creates instability 

• Misalignment between innovation and company strategy 

• Delayed problem solving due to resource competition 

Closing Thoughts 

Failing fast isn’t about celebrating failure — it’s about celebrating learning.
In manufacturing, where precision and reliability are paramount, embracing this mindset allows us to evolve quickly, serve our customers better, and remain at the forefront of innovation.