This document discusses failures in community wireless network (CWN) projects from 2000-2008 and proposes redefining failure. It presents a taxonomy of CWN project types and examples of notable failures, such as political CWNs in Berlin and Portland that were replaced by commercial networks. The author argues failures can still contribute value through transparent learning and that policy should consider unstated project goals, not just stated goals, when defining failure. The vision is to develop a new taxonomy that recognizes both planned and unplanned outcomes of seemingly failed projects.

1. #FAIL: What we learn from failed tech projects Alison Powell, London School of Economicsa.powell@lse.ac.ukTwitter: @postdocalhttp://www.alisonpowell.ca

3. 'Failure' and 'Success' in citizen technology projects

4. Defining Failure

5. Systemic vs Partial Failure

6. Transparent vs Opaque Failure

7. Stated vs Unstated Goals

8. Policy contributions of 'failed' networks

9. New taxonomy?The Vision of the Open Internet“Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.” Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow

10. The Reality of the Black Box

11. Community Wireless Networks (2000-2008)

12. Great Expectations:Some Frameworks for citizen technology projectsCitizen EngagementEmpowermentParticipationAlternative Technology

13. Policy Challenge/Governance

14. Enterprise and businessTypes of FailureSystemic vs Partial Failure (Heeks, 2005)Easier to understand systemic failure

15. Partial failure requires recognition of subjectivityTransparent Failure (Kuhn, 1963)

16. Contributes to future learning or progress

17. Includes planned obsolescence

18. Generative vs disruptiveOpaque Failure

19. Unclear what has failed or how

20. Perhaps the result of undeclared goals at odds with policy/legal framesCWN Policy ExpectationsInnovation PolicyCWNs can model demand for broadband

21. CWNs can create new organizational formsSocial Policy

22. CWNs can bridge the digital divideCommunication Policy

23. CWNs can create P2P alternatives (mesh networks)Community Typology of Network Typescommerce net: develops new services or business models culture net:showcases art, culture and community or is viewed as an artistic projectdemo net: demonstrates proof of concept of a technology or mode of organization equiNet: promotes community wireless as a means of addressing the digital divide political-Net: draws attention to political issues and the politics of access to communicationspicnic net: brings together a social group

24. Some notable failuresPolitical Nets (Berlin and Portland, OR)CWN in Berlin built mesh network to highlight redlining of East Berlin. Network functions poorly

25. In Portland, CWN replaced by corporate network. Community monitored commercial network's performanceEqui-Nets (France, various)

26. Replaced by commercial networks

27. Drove campaign for public access to spectrumPicnic-Nets (Serbia and Athens)

28. Significant innovation – often illegal

29. Social relations more important than technical innovationToday's project: a new taxonomy of failures

31. Redefining FailurePolicy (and law) posit transparent relations between goals and outcomesYet legally marginal actions have outcomes of public benefitSo too do 'failed' projectsIs it possible to develop policy to encourage unstated goals?

32. Learning from FailureDesign methods Iteration Effective useCritique of powerContext