Defining Failure

Given the hard time we have defining success in the security field, you’d think we must have at least a firm handle on failure. But that isn’t entirely the case. As both an entrepreneur and a security guy, I may have a different perspective on failure, which influences how I look at pretty much all our business activities. I read a lot of VC and entrepreneur blogs, not because I want to raise money – in fact I’d rather hook my soft targets to a car battery than take outside investment. But I need to learn about how folks are screwing things up and try not to do that. Don Dodge’s short post, Failure is just experience on the way to success resonated with me. He talks about failing fast and the idiocy of the failure is not an option mantra. Of course, if lives hang in the balance, I’m good with doing whatever is humanly possible to avoid failure. But for a business? Give me a break. It creates a culture of risk avoidance, always a recipe for failure over the long term. Look at pretty much all big companies – they have this in spades. Their size and inertia may offset their lack of innovation for years, but ultimately these companies hit the wall because they get too big to remain nimble. So what? How does this help you do security better? Well, there is one crystal-clear failure in security: the breach. That means something failed and data was compromised – simple. You try hard to respond effectively and move on. But let’s talk about another type of failure. That’s the failure of a tactic, control, or product. You do all sorts of things that aren’t working – in many cases you know it’s not working. Let’s just pick on SIEM for a few minutes. Some organizations get tremendous value from SIEM, but I’ve met with countless other companies which do not. Not many stand up, own the project failure, and move on to something else that might work better. Failure needs to be an option These folks believe failure is not an option. They see tremendous political capital locked up in the tactic they decided on, and won’t risk looking bad by admitting failure. They’d rather keep throwing good money after bad, and wasting major resources that could be better used elsewhere to save face in the political meat grinder. Most of the time they also fail agonizingly slowly. Many of these science projects require a significant amount of integration and professional services, further driving up the price and pushing out the timeline. I get that sometimes an initiative can have a happy ending even if things look pretty bleak during part of the process. But realistically, more often than not, it doesn’t get better. At least until you find your next gig. But this isn’t the real driver for this dysfunction. There is very little incentive for small cogs in big wheels to stick their necks out and declare failure before they are forced to. Best case, you draw down your credibility. Worst case, you cost yourself a job before you needed to. Do you really wonder why most folks just sit on failure until the rotten fish stench becomes un-ignorable? Or why it usually takes a regime change to address all the hidden turds that were studiously being ignored, at significant cost to the organization? Failing Gracefully What can you do about it? If you work in an organization where failure is frowned upon, keep making deposits in the credibility bank and hope you have enough credit, then make a careful decision exactly when to admit the failure. Hoping the project will recover is not a strategy for success. These ongoing train wrecks represent sunk costs, so focus on cleaning these messes up as quickly as possible while keeping your job. Looking forward, you can change things, and that’s what you need to focus on. You need to manage your projects a bit differently. See how you can break larger initiatives down into smaller ones, with defined exit points. Reduce financial and resource risk, and allow yourself some leeway to determine whether you are on the right path. Have a Plan B, if your best-laid plans end up being wrong. If you are interviewing for a new gig, understand how the organization handles failure. Ask for anecdotes and stories about projects that went south. Did anyone live to tell the tale? Or are they all urban legends because all the bodies are buried throughout the organization? Ask how success is defined, and whether a similar amount of effort is spent on defining failure. Go in with your eyes open, and don’t have what sales folks call happy ears when you don’t get answers you like. I do believe failure is your friend. Maybe that’s my own confirmation bias talking, because I have failed more than most. But regardless of your job role, you can embrace failure and do your job better for it. Really. Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.