Ford Lost Le Mans for the Same Reason Your Docs Fail (#7)

Products Fail when Reviews Exclude Critical Stakeholders

Your team thinks it reviews docs. It doesn’t.

Ask who signed off on the last update.

Silence.

Then something breaks.

“I thought someone checked that.”

They didn’t.

This ambiguity highlights a common issue. While many assume documentation undergoes thorough review, the reality is that ownership is frequently undefined, leading to overlooked errors.

Consider the impact of these oversights: a missing API parameter, an outdated configuration in a tutorial, or a misleading instruction can all derail integrations and frustrate customers. Such seemingly minor documentation failures can escalate into significant, costly problems.

According to Postman's 2024 State of the API Report, 58% of developers rely on internal documentation to understand APIs, yet 39% cite inconsistent documentation as a major obstacle. This inconsistency underscores the critical need for reliable and accurate documentation.

---

Ford v Ferrari: The Cost of Skipping Reviews

In 1964, Ford set an ambitious goal to dethrone Ferrari at the prestigious Le Mans race. Ferrari had long dominated this 24-hour endurance challenge, crafting faster and more refined cars. Driven by determination, Ford invested heavily in developing the GT40, a vehicle engineered to surpass Ferrari's prowess. On paper, the GT40 appeared flawless.

However, come race day, the GT40's performance was disastrous. It suffered from overheating, poor handling, and ultimately failed to finish. Despite substantial investments, Ford's critical mistake was not involving the right experts early in the process.

Engineers, confident in their designs, neglected to consult the drivers — the individuals who would be operating the car under race conditions — until issues became glaringly apparent. The GT40's instability at high speeds rendered it ineffective.

The turning point? Ford stopped assuming. They started testing.

They put the car in the hands of the drivers before failure hit.

Documentation is no different. If you assume it works without real-world testing — without engineers, support teams, and product managers driving it — failure is inevitable.

---

Lacking Documentation is a Rushed Race Car

Neglecting thorough documentation reviews might seem like a time-saver, but it merely postpones inevitable problems. If your API documentation lacks essential parameters, users will encounter difficulties. Omitting troubleshooting steps in setup guides burdens your support team with avoidable queries. Discrepancies between documentation and the actual product erode customer trust.

Ford's experience illustrates that rushing a product out the door without comprehensive testing leads to failure. Similarly, inadequate documentation review processes result in user frustration and diminished credibility. Implementing a robust review system is not an optional extra. It's essential to prevent future issues.

---