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Consider the impact of these oversights: a missing API parameter, an outdated configuration in a tutorial, or a misleading instruction can all derail integrations and frustrate customers.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.
Implementing a Comprehensive Review Process
The failure of many documentation reviews stems from a lack of structure. Teams often assume that if the appropriate individuals glance over the content, errors will be caught.
However, this informal approach allows mistakes to slip through, as no single person has complete oversight. Establishing a structured review process ensures that documentation is meticulously evaluated from all necessary perspectives before reaching the end-users.
Most documentation reviews fail for one reason. Everyone assumes someone else checked it:
Engineers assume support will flag usability issues.
Support assumes engineering verified the API details.
Product Marketing assumes everything aligns with messaging.
No one owns it. And incomplete documentation ships.
To avoid this, a proper review must pass through three critical layers:
Technical Accuracy: Involvement of the Engineering team to verify that API calls, configurations, and commands are correct and up-to-date with the latest release.
Usability and Clarity: Engagement of the Support team to ensure that instructions are user-friendly, comprehensive, and address potential troubleshooting scenarios.
Business Alignment: Consultation with Product, Account Management, and Product Marketing teams to confirm that the documentation aligns with customer expectations and maintains consistency with product messaging.
A document should only be published after successfully passing through all three layers. This structured approach mitigates blind spots, enforces accountability, and prevents hasty approvals, thereby safeguarding against documentation errors that can lead to wasted resources and reputational harm.
Effective Strategies for Requesting Reviews
Ever sent a documentation review request… and gotten zero responses?
It’s not because your team doesn’t care. It’s because bad requests get ignored.
A generic message like, "Can someone review this when you have time?" lacks clarity and urgency, resulting in inaction. To elicit effective feedback, review requests should be direct, assign specific responsibilities, and outline clear expectations.
Subject: Documentation Review Required – [Product] Documentation (Deadline: EOD November 20)
Dear [Reviewer’s Name],
We are preparing to publish the [Product] documentation next week and require your expertise as the [specific role] reviewer.
Please focus on the following areas:
Verify the accuracy of [specific section].
Identify any missing troubleshooting steps.
Ensure alignment of messaging with the [specific product release].
Deadline for feedback: End of day, Wednesday, November 20.
Resource: Google Doc (for comments and suggestions)
Please let me know if you encounter any obstacles.
Best regards,
[Your Name]
This approach clarifies ownership, sets explicit expectations, and establishes a firm deadline, transforming documentation reviews into a proactive process rather than an afterthought.
Revamping Your Documentation Review Process
Subpar documentation is not merely a content issue. It's a symptom of flawed execution. Had Ford integrated driver feedback earlier, their Le Mans victory might have come sooner. Similarly, effective documentation reviews can prevent customer frustration and support inefficiencies.
Every document you publish without a real review is a ticking time bomb.
If you don’t fix your process, you’ll ship the following:
Bad decisions
Lost deals
Angry customers
Expensive fires
Fix your documentation review process. Or brace for the fallout.
Without these measures, the next customer support crisis is not a matter of if, but when.