Henry Petroski Quotes

I employ case studies of failure into my courses, emphasizing that they teach us much more than studies of success. It is not that success stories cannot serve as models of good design or as exemplars of creative engineering. They can do that, but they cannot teach us how close to failure they are.

Successful engineering is all about understanding how things break or fail.

I've learnt something from every failure. The products I helped design at the first two companies I worked for were utter failures. But now I know why.

Engineers are very logical and everything has to be tested so when we fail, we'll know why and how to improve things.

Defeat has its lessons as well as victory.

You can almost say that a design error is a human error because, after all, it's we humans who do the designing.

Engineering is achieving function while avoiding failure.

A rational model of software is to design it quickly - the economic pressure to improvise presents an interesting challenge.

Never walk away from failure. On the contrary, study it carefully and imaginatively for its hidden assets.

It is in Toyota's DNA that mistakes made once will not be repeated.

Sometimes you learn more from films that aren't terribly successful and, indeed, sometimes you learn more from real disasters than you do from the ones that succeed.

So I went for engineering, specifically product design, which I enjoyed.

We worked with the engineers in the design and construction and testing phases in those various areas, then we would get back together at the end of the week and brief each other as to what had gone on.

My first book, 'To Engineer Is Human,' was prompted by nonengineer friends asking me why so many technological accidents and failures were occurring. If engineers knew what they were doing, why did bridges and buildings fall down? It was a question that I had often asked myself, and I had no easy answer.

Every time I make a mistake with a company, I write it out and try to figure out why it happened.

Finding out exactly what went wrong is key toward preventing future debacles.

The paradox is that when we model future designs on past successes, we are inviting failure down the line; when we take into account past failures and anticipate potential new ways in which failure can occur, we are more likely to produce successful designs.

Just because a company falls doesn't invalidate what we can learn by studying that company when it was at its historical best.

We seem to gain wisdom more readily through our failures than through our successes. We always think of failure as the antithesis of success, but it isn't. Success often lies just the other side of failure.

Study people's success stories hard. Study their failures even harder.

What is commonly overlooked in using the computer is the fact that the central goal of design is still to obviate failure, and thus it is critical to identify exactly how a structure may fail. The computer cannot do this by itself . . .

What looks like a failure teaches us what not to do, what does not work. We have lessons to learn from our experiences.

When you want to know how things really work, study them when they're coming apart.

Failure hurts pretty bad. But when you got good people around you they remind you that failure is actually just a lesson. It's how not to walk so you don't fall again.

I've often felt there might be more to be gained by studying business failures than business successes.