A couple of years ago whilst I was on a work trip to Stockholm I went to see the famous Vasa ship. It’s a marvel to see, but it’s also a superb monument to the folly of man, particularly when it comes to technology.
The Vasa ship, ordered by King Gustav II Adolf of Sweden, was designed to be an impressive display of military might. When it launched in 1628 it was the world’s most high-tech warship and it featured an unprecedented 64 bronze cannons. Yet, it sank just minutes into its maiden voyage, tragically claiming the lives of 30 sailors and providing a cautionary tale to this day for anyone seeking to design technology. Sadly, the causes of the disaster are still all too common in technology application – a combination of poor engineering, rushed timelines, and misaligned priorities. The Vasa story tells us about three fundamentals of designing technology well:
Balancing ambition with practicality
The Vasa project was driven by ambition and vanity. It’s aim was to showcase Sweden’s naval superiority. But the decision to double the number of cannons (despite the fact that the ship’s design was not suitable to carry this extra weight) led to fatal instability. The ship had a tall, heavy upper hull and a small keel. The increase in the number of cannons came at the sacrifice of stabilising ballast. When the ship set sail the Captain allowed the gun ports to remain open to show off it’s many guns. Twenty minutes into its maiden voyage a strong gust of wind caused the boat to lean over dramatically and water poured into the open gun ports.
A clear link between design and technical feasibility
One of the key issues in the Vasa’s failure was poor communication between the designers who were responding to the King’s demands, and the builders who were responsible for whether the designs would actually work or not. The Vasa was overloaded with ornate decorations and weaponry, which might have looked impressive but significantly contributed to its instability.
Similarly, adding too many features to a product or service is a surprisingly common error – what’s been called ‘doing a Homer’, in reference to the occasion when Homer Simpson was asked to design a car and overloaded it with fancy features.
Don’t skimp on testing
Most ships are rigorously tested for seaworthiness yet this was surprisingly lacking with the Vasa. The ship was built under direct orders from the king, who prioritized speed and grandeur over expert advice. This mismatch between leadership and expertise, and a distinct lack of testing, led to a hugely costly error. Similarly in technology projects the imposition of unrealistic deadlines, and the all too common planning fallacy, can result in the pressure not to test properly, or to make shortcuts which then come back to bite you.
Successful projects require leadership that respects and incorporates technical expertise into decision-making processes. It requires the humility to avoid prioritising flashy features over robust but less exciting functionality. To rigorously test for assumptions. Ambitious goals need to be balanced with practical feasibility. Without these critical factors, even the most impressive-looking projects can end in failure.
I write a weekly Substack of digital trends, transformation insights and quirkiness. To join our community of thousands of subscribers you can sign up to that here.
To get posts like this delivered straight to your inbox, drop your email into the box below.
Both photos by Lorenzo Liverani on Unsplash
Leave a Reply