Your Perfect Assignment is Just a Click Away
We Write Custom Academic Papers

100% Original, Plagiarism Free, Customized to your instructions!

glass
pen
clip
papers
heaphones

Discussion: Failures to get a postmortem

Discussion: Failures to get a postmortem

Failures get a postmortem. Why not triumphs? by Francesca Gino and Gary P. Pisano

Failure Understand It

Why Leaders Don’t Learn From Success

68 Harvard Business Review April 2011

1038 Apr11 Gino.indd 681038 Apr11 Gino.indd 68 2/25/11 4:55:33 PM2/25/11 4:55:33 PM

T Francesca Gino (fgino@ hbs.edu) is an associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.

Gary P. Pisano (gpisano@ hbs.edu) is the Harry E. Figgie, Jr., Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School.

an organization with a long history of winning: the Ducati Corse motorcycle racing team. Motorcycle racing may seem a long way from the world of busi- ness, but in fact it provides a perfect laboratory for research on learning. Performance is unambiguously measurable by lap times and race results. You know with brutal precision whether you’re getting better or worse. Racing is also unforgiving. The race is Sun- day, and it won’t wait if you’re late. Finally, the rac- ing circuit is intensely competitive: During a season a dozen world-class teams battle each week for the top spot. For an organization like Italy’s Ducati, wins have a huge impact on brand equity and commercial bike sales.

In 2003, Bologna-based Ducati entered the Grand Prix motorcycle racing circuit (or “MotoGP”) for the fi rst time. Being a newcomer, it approached 2003 as

“a learning season,” its team director told us. The goal was to acquire knowledge that would help it develop a better bike for future seasons. To that end, the team fi tted its bikes with sensors that captured data on 28 performance parameters (such as temperature and horsepower). Riders were debriefed after every race to get input on subjective characteristics like handling and responsiveness. The team looked like a model learning organization.

Then something unexpected happened: The rookie team fi nished among the top three in nine races and was second overall for the season, and its bike was the fastest in the fi eld. But with each suc- cess the team focused more on winning and less on learning, and it ended up analyzing little of the data it collected. As one team member commented,

“You look at the data when you want to understand what’s going wrong. You do not look at the data be- cause you want to understand why you’re perform- ing well.”

The successful season caused the team members to believe Ducati could win it all in 2004. After all, if they could fi nish second as rookies, why shouldn’t they take fi rst now that they had some experience?

THE ANNALS of business history are full of tales of companies that once dominated their industries but fell into decline. The usual reasons off ered—staying too close to existing customers, a myopic focus on short-term fi nancial performance, and an inability to adapt business models to disruptive innovation— don’t fully explain how the leaders who had steered these fi rms to greatness lost their touch.

In this article we argue that success can breed fail- ure by hindering learning at both the individual and the organizational level. We all know that learning from failure is one of the most important capacities for people and companies to develop. Yet surpris- ingly, learning from success can present even greater challenges. To illuminate those challenges—and identify approaches for overcoming them—we will draw from our research and from the work of other scholars in the fi eld of behavioral decision making, and focus on three interrelated impediments to learning.

The fi rst is the inclination to make what psychol- ogists call fundamental attribution errors. When we succeed, we’re likely to conclude that our talents and our current model or strategy are the reasons. We also give short shrift to the part that environmental factors and random events may have played.

The second impediment is overconfidence bias: Success increases our self-assurance. Faith in our- selves is a good thing, of course, but too much of it can make us believe we don’t need to change anything.

The third impediment is the failure-to-ask-why syndrome—the tendency not to investigate the causes of good performance systematically. When executives and their teams suff er from this syndrome, they don’t ask the tough questions that would help them expand their knowledge or alter their assump- tions about how the world works.

Lessons from Ducati We began to examine the challenges of learning from success in 2004, when we did a case study of ILL

U ST

R A

TI O

N : J

A C

K B

LA C

K

April 2011 Harvard Business Review 69

HBR.ORG

1038 Apr11 Gino.indd 691038 Apr11 Gino.indd 69 2/25/11 4:55:43 PM2/25/11 4:55:43 PM

This confi dence manifested itself in the decision to radically redesign the team’s bike for the 2004 season rather than incrementally improve the 2003 model.

More than 60% of the 2004 model’s 915 compo- nents were new. But at the outset of that season, it became apparent that the bike had serious handling problems and that the team had made a big mistake in changing so much at once without giving itself the time to test everything.

Interestingly, the team still fi nished third overall that year—thanks to extensive experiments it con- ducted to understand the causes of the bike’s prob- lems. Though third place wasn’t bad, it was viewed as a failure, given the high expectations. And this disappointment then triggered a comprehensive and ultimately quite effective reexamination of the team’s approach to developing bikes. (One big change was to have the engineering group begin de- veloping the bike for the next season much earlier, so it could be thoroughly tested before being raced.) The team turned in solid performances in the 2005 and 2006 seasons and took the world title in 2007. In short, success led the Ducati Corse team to stop learning, and only perceived failure caused it to start again.

After studying Ducati, we went on to conduct research in the entertainment, pharmaceutical, and

software industries and performed experiments in the laboratory and in executive education classes. Again and again, we saw the same phenomenon. Ul- timately, we recognized that there was a common cause: the three impediments to learning.

Making Dangerous Attribution Errors In racing, many interdependent factors affect out- comes. Without a detailed analysis, it was impossi- ble to know whether the Ducati team’s performance in 2003 was due to its bike design, its strategy for particular races, its riders’ talents and decisions, bad choices by other teams, luck, random events like the weather or crashes, or some complex combination of all those things. And without such knowledge (and given Ducati’s long history of winning in other ven- ues), it was too easy to attribute the team’s excellent performance to the quality of its decisions, actions, and capabilities.

In business, likewise, any number of factors may lead to success, independent of the quality of a product or management’s decisions. Yet it is all too common for executives to attribute the success of their organizations to their own insights and mana- gerial skills and ignore or downplay random events or external factors outside their control. Imagine, for instance, that you are leading a team whose num- bers are great: It’s tempting to credit yourself or your team’s actions for that achievement, though it may actually just be a stroke of good luck or the result of your competitors’ problems.

Research (including a classic study by the psychol- ogists Edward Jones and Victor Harris) has proved that this is normal human behavior. Moreover, when examining the bad performance of others, people tend to do the exact opposite. In exercises that we conducted in executive education classes at Harvard, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Carnegie Mellon University, most participants, when evaluating the success of others, minimized the role of leadership skills and strategy and maximized the role of external factors and luck.

Another study found that people also have trou- ble adjusting for the diffi culty of the situation when judging successes. (See the sidebar “The Challenge of Discounting Easy Successes.”) In business this bias can aff ect many critical decisions, including whom to hire or promote, which products to launch, and which practices to spread throughout the organiza- tion. Someone who has led a thriving business in a highly profitable industry, for instance, often ap-

Success led the Ducati racing team to stop learning, and only a perceived failure caused it to start again. After its disappointing third- place fi nish, the team reexamined its approach to developing bikes.

I was considered by all my masters and my father a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard of intellect.” CHARLES DARWIN SCIENTIST

FOCUS ON FAILURE

PH O

TO G

R A

PH Y:

G ET

TY IM

A G

ES

70 Harvard Business Review April 2011

UNDERSTANDING FAILURE WHY LEADERS DON’T LEARN FROM SUCCESS

1038 Apr11 Gino.indd 701038 Apr11 Gino.indd 70 2/25/11 4:55:52 PM2/25/11 4:55:52 PM

Idea in Brief Virtually all leaders recognize the need to learn from failures, but amazingly few try to understand the true causes of their fi rms’ successes, which helps explain why great companies fall into decline.

The reality is, success can breed failure by hindering learning at both individual and organizational levels, in three interrelated ways:

1 When we succeed, we tend to give too much credit to our talents and our model or strategy and too little to external factors and luck.

2 Success can make us so over- confi dent that we believe we don’t need to change anything.

3 We have a tendency not to investigate the causes of good performance.

Recognizing that these impedi- ments exist is a big fi rst step in overcoming them. Some basic practices also can help: system- atic after-action reviews, tools like Six Sigma, and experiments that test assumptions about what is needed to achieve great performance.

pears more attractive than a similarly skilled or even more qualifi ed candidate who has struggled to lead a fi rm in an industry in which most companies are failing.

We repeatedly observed pharmaceutical com- panies making these kinds of attribution errors in choosing which drugs to kill or push forward. They selected drugs whose initial tests were successful as potential winners and allocated more money to them for further testing and development. But often managers assumed a success was due to the unique abilities of their in-house scientists and didn’t con- sider whether it could be due to greater general knowledge in that particular scientifi c area, which competitors might have, too.

In addition, we found that long lead times can blind executives to problems with their current strategies. Again, consider the pharmaceutical in- dustry. Because it takes 12 years, on average, to get a drug from discovery to market, a company’s perfor- mance today has relatively little to do with its most recent actions and decisions. Yet both managers and investors often attribute today’s high performance to the company’s current strategy, management, and scientists.

Falling Prey to the Overconfi dence Bias Without some confi dence, we could not make deci- sions or tackle any kind of risky endeavor; we would be constantly second-guessing ourselves. That said, too much confi dence can be a problem, and nothing inflates confidence like success. Take Alan Green- span, who until the near meltdown of the fi nancial system in 2008 was considered one of the best Fed- eral Reserve chairmen in U.S. history. Afterward, it became apparent that Fed policy makers, led by Greenspan, had placed too much faith in their fi- nancial models. In testimony to Congress in October

2008, Greenspan acknowledged his own shock that the models had failed. And, of course, he was not the only one who succumbed to excessive confi dence. During the housing boom, many leaders of large and small banks and managers of mortgage lending, in- vesting, and trading operations stopped examining the key assumptions that underpinned the models they were using.

Success can make us believe that we are better decision makers than we actually are. In a simple recent study of managers in various industries, we asked members of one group to recall a time when they experienced a success in their professional lives and members of a second group to recall a time when they experienced a failure. We then asked people in both groups to engage in a series of decision-making tasks and embedded measures in the exercise that allowed us to assess their confi dence, optimism, and risk-seeking behavior. Compared with the execu- tives who’d recalled a failure, those who’d recalled a success were much more confi dent in their abilities, made more-optimistic forecasts of their future suc- cess, and were more likely to take bigger bets. These fi ndings are consistent with research examining how success breeds overconfidence in other contexts. (See the sidebar “How Power Causes Us to Ignore Advice.”)

Overconfi dence inspired by past successes can infect whole organizations, causing them to dismiss new innovations, dips in customer satisfaction, and increases in quality problems, and to make overly risky moves. Consider all the companies that grew rapidly through acquisitions only to stumble badly after biting off one too many; the countless banks that made ever-riskier loans in the past decade, sure of their ability to sort good borrowers from bad; and all the darlings of the business media that had win- ning formulas but did not try to update or alter their strategies until it was way too late.

THE CHALLENGE OF DISCOUNTING EASY SUCCESSES

The inability of people to adjust for degree of diffi culty when assessing accomplishments was clearly demonstrated in a study that one of us, Francesca Gino, conducted with Don Moore of Berkeley and Sam Swift and Zacha- riah Sharek of Carnegie Mellon. Students at a U.S. university assumed the role of admissions offi cers for an MBA program and were presented with informa- tion about candidates’ grade point averages as well as the average GPA at their colleges. In their decisions, the participants overweighted applicants’ nominal GPAs and under- weighted the eff ect of the grading norms at diff erent schools. In other words, they didn’t take into ac- count the ease with which grades were earned.

April 2011 Harvard Business Review 71

HBR.ORG

1038 Apr11 Gino.indd 711038 Apr11 Gino.indd 71 2/25/11 4:55:58 PM2/25/11 4:55:58 PM

Failing to Ask Why When you’re confronted with failure, it’s natural to ask why disaster struck. Unfortunately, success does not trigger such soul-searching. Success is commonly interpreted as evidence not only that your existing strategy and practices work but also that you have all the knowledge and information you need. Several studies, as well as our own research, show that most people tend to think this way. (See the sidebar “How Success Makes Us Less Refl ective.”)

We have seen the same pattern in the real world. The efforts invested in understanding the causes of the recent fi nancial crash dwarf the eff orts that were made to understand why things seemed to be going so well before. In hospitals, doctors conduct rigorous “mortality and morbidity reviews” of cases that ended badly, but little systematic eff ort is made to understand why patients recover. Even Toyota, which built its vaunted production system around vigorous learning, was much better at uncovering the causes of its problems than of its success. This was revealed by its recent recalls, when its leaders admitted that their success in pursuing higher sales and market share had blinded them to the fact that operations had essentially compromised quality to achieve growth.

A Simple Model of Learning To avoid the success-breeds-failure trap, you need to understand how experience shapes learning. Learn- ing is, of course, a highly complex cognitive and or- ganizational process, and numerous models have been developed about it in the academic literature. Drawing from those, we present a simplifi ed model that highlights the effect that success and failure have on learning.

We start with the premise that individuals and organizations at any point in time hold certain the- ories, models, principles, and rules of thumb that

guide their actions. Your choices about the people you hire, the projects you fund (or terminate), the features you include in new product designs, and the business strategies you pursue are all infl uenced by them. Sometimes theories are quite sophisti- cated and rooted in science or decades of practical experience. But in many other cases, they are pretty informal—and we may not even be aware that they are swaying our decisions.

Learning is the process of updating our theories. In some cases personal experience alters them. For example, Steve Jobs recounted in a 2005 graduation speech at Stanford University how the inclusion of multiple typefaces and proportional spacing on the fi rst Macintosh stemmed from the calligraphy course he took after dropping out of college. But members of an organization also learn together. Experience with both winners (the iPod) and losers (the Newton) has caused Apple, as a company, to update its theo- ries of what leads to successful products.

From this perspective, learning is all about un- derstanding why things happen and why some deci- sions lead to specifi c outcomes. This understanding does not come automatically. We make a conscious choice to challenge our assumptions and models. And usually, we do so as the result of a failure. This has been true from the time we fi rst tried to walk or ride a bicycle. We fall down, it hurts, and we try an- other approach. An amazing number of high-ranking executives report that early failures in their careers taught them lessons that ultimately led to their suc- cess. Failure provides a motivation for organizations to learn, too.

But what about success? Success does not dis- prove your theory. And if it isn’t broken, why fi x it? Consequently, when we succeed, we just focus on applying what we already know to solving problems. We don’t revise our theories or expand our knowl- edge of how our business works.

When we’re in positions of authority and infl uence, we tend to shut out those bearing bad news.

Research that Francesca Gino recently conducted with Leigh Tost of the University of Washington and Rick Larrick of Duke University illustrated this phenomenon. In one study a group of participants (students from U.S. universi- ties) were asked to write about a time they had power over other people, a task that sig- nifi cantly boosted their level

of confi dence. Another group were asked to write about a time other people had power over them, a task that lowered their level of confi dence. Then the participants were asked to make a series of deci- sions with the advice from an expert. When feeling confi dent, people placed more weight on their own opinion than on the adviser’s, even though follow-

ing the adviser’s recommenda- tions would have improved their decisions.

In another study, similar feelings of confi dence experi- enced by a team leader caused the leader to do most of the talking during the team dis- cussion and, as a result, to fail to discover critical information that other team members had.

How Power Causes Us to Ignore Advice

In a recent study we conducted in a controlled laboratory setting, students from U.S. universities were asked to work on two decision-making problems. Learning from experience on the fi rst problem could help them perform well on the second. After submit- ting their solutions to the fi rst problem, the partici- pants were told whether or not they had succeeded. They were then given time to refl ect before starting the second problem. Compared with the people who failed at the fi rst problem, those who succeeded spent sig- nifi cantly less time refl ecting on the strategies they’d used. This had a cost: Those who succeeded on the fi rst task were more likely to fail on the second. They had neglected to ask why.

HOW SUCCESS MAKES US LESS REFLECTIVE

72 Harvard Business Review April 2011

UNDERSTANDING FAILURE WHY LEADERS DON’T LEARN FROM SUCCESS

1038 Apr11 Gino.indd 721038 Apr11 Gino.indd 72 2/25/11 4:56:03 PM2/25/11 4:56:03 PM

Does success mean “it isn’t broken”? Not neces- sarily. The reality is that while a success (or a string of successes) may mean you’re on the right track, you can’t assume this to be true without further testing, experimentation, and refl ection. You should use suc- cess to breed more success by understanding it. Con- sider Jobs’s decision to launch the iPhone, learn from that experience, and apply that knowledge to launch the iPad. Jobs and others at Apple were undoubtedly wary of plunging ahead with the iPad fi rst because of the failure of Apple’s Newton tablet in the 1990s. In a brilliant move, they recognized that a touchphone would be easier to launch, given the existing smart- phone market, making it the ideal vehicle for Apple to learn about and perfect touch devices.

This example points to a better model for learning, one in which failure and success are on equal footing and both trigger further investigation that helps us revise our assumptions, models, and theories.

Five Ways to Learn How can you avoid the traps we have discussed? Here are some approaches and strategies that you and your organization can use.

Celebrate success but examine it. There is nothing wrong with toasting your success. But if you stop with the clinking of the champagne glasses, you have missed a huge opportunity. When a win is achieved, the organization needs to investigate what led to it with the same rigor and scrutiny it might ap- ply to understanding the causes of failure.

Recognize that this may be an uncomfortable process. You may learn, for instance, that success was achieved only by happenstance. A biotechnol- ogy company we studied, which faced a serious shortage of capacity to produce an important new product, is a case in point. Just when it appeared that the fi rm would not be able to meet demand, its leaders discovered that a competitor had put a plant up for sale—a stroke of luck that allowed the com- pany to buy all the capacity it needed. The product launched and was extremely successful. Instead of simply rejoicing in their good fortune and moving on, the company’s leaders revisited why the intro- duction had gone so well. That review highlighted the part luck had played. And when they examined why the company had been so vulnerable in the fi rst place, they learned that its demand-forecasting and capacity-planning processes were broken.

The search for causes of success may also identify factors that may be hard or even undesirable to repli-

cate. In one project we studied, a group responsible for developing the software for a complex electronic system was so far behind, it risked delaying a stra- tegic launch. By doubling the size of the team and working 80-hour weeks, the group fi nished in the nick of time. The product was a major commercial hit. Even so, the company wisely conducted a de- tailed postproject assessment. While lauding the software development team’s dedication, the assess- ment highlighted critical problems in its process that needed to be fi xed.

Institute systematic project reviews. The military holds “after-action reviews” (AARs) of each combat encounter and combat-training exercise, ir- respective of the outcome. As in business, the rea- sons for success or failure in combat often are not clear. AARs are debriefs that, when used properly, generate specifi c recommendations that can be put to use immediately. Companies can employ the same process, which is relatively straightforward. Like sports coaches and players who convene right after a game to review a team’s performance, AAR participants meet after an important event or activ- ity to discuss four key questions: What did we set out to do? What actually happened? Why did it happen? What are we going to do next time?

Pixar, which has had 11 hit animated films in a row (and therefore is an organization that would be very vulnerable to the kinds of traps we have dis- cussed), conducts rigorous reviews of the process used to make each of its films. In “How Pixar Fos- ters Collective Creativity” (HBR September 2008), Ed Catmull, the president of Pixar, confessed that people don’t like to do them and would prefer to just celebrate victories and move on. So Pixar employs various methods to ensure that team members don’t

SEMANTICS The word “failure” appears in HBR with regularity, but the context in which it is used has changed along with the times.

FOCUS ON FAILURE

FAILURE The TERMS most frequently used with FAILURE, according to semantic clustering analysis

SERVICES 1990–1992 RISK

2007–2009 THE CEO 2004–2006

SOURCE HAYDN SHAUGHNESSY, LEXIMANCER

EMPLOYEES 2000–2003

April 2011 Harvard Business Review 73

HBR.ORG

1038 Apr11 Gino.indd 731038 Apr11 Gino.indd 73 2/25/11 4:56:09 PM2/25/11 4:56:09 PM

HBR.ORG

game the system and are engaged in the process. It might ask participants the top fi ve things they would do and the top fi ve things they would not do again. It changes the format of postmortems from time to time. It religiously collects data about all aspects of a production and uses them to “stimulate discussion and challenge assumptions arising from personal impressions” during the postmortems. Finally, it periodically conducts a review across several pro- ductions and tries to get someone with an outsider’s perspective (a newly hired senior manager, for ex- ample) to head it.

The challenge, of course, is to apply the same de- gree of rigor whether things are going well or badly. Consider performance evaluations. We all tend to spend much more time reviewing the performance of the employee who is struggling than of the one who is cruising along. However, understanding the reasons behind the good performance of successful employees may bring to light important lessons for others.

Use the right time horizons. When the time lag between an action and its consequences is short, it’s relatively easy to identify the causes of per- formance. The problem is that in many cases, the feedback cycle is inherently long. In industries like pharmaceuticals and aerospace, decisions made today about new products or specifi c technologies to pursue will not bear fruit (or fl op) for a decade or more. Unless you have the appropriate time frame for evaluating performance, you are likely to mis- construe the factors that led to success or failure. By understanding the appropriate time dimensions, you can prevent yourself from being “fooled by ran- domness” (to use Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s famous

phrase). Recognize that replication is not

learning. When things go well, our biggest concern is how to capture what we did and make

sure we can repeat the success. Replication is important; we need to spread good practices throughout our

organizations. But if the chief lesson from a

successful project is a list of things to do the same way the next time, consider the exercise a failure.

Tools like Six Sigma and total quality manage- ment have taught us to dig into root causes of prob- lems. Why not use the same approach to understand the root causes of success? Institute a phase in the process where each factor that contributed to suc- cess is classifi ed as “something we can directly con- trol” or “something that is aff ected by external fac- tors.” Factors under your control can remain part of your winning formula. But you need to understand how external factors interact with them.

If it ain’t broke, experiment. Experimentation is one way to test assumptions and theories about what is needed to achieve high levels of perfor- mance. And it should continue even after a success. This happens all the time in scientifi c research and in engineering. Engineers routinely subject their de- signs to ever-more-rigorous tests until the thing they are designing actually breaks. Organizational experi- ments can also be conducted to push boundaries. Of course, the costs and impact of such experiments need to be managed carefully (to avoid severe fi nan- cial consequences or harming customers). The right question for leaders of learning organizations to ask is not “What are we doing well?” but rather “What experiments are we running?”

THE PATH to effective learning involves simple but counterintuitive steps: Managers must actively test their theories, even when they seem to be working, and rigorously investigate the causes of both good and bad performance. Ironically, casting a critical eye on your success can better prepare you to avoid failure. Some may consider this to be an art. But in fact it is much more of a science.

Filippo Preziosi, general director for the Ducati Corse team, reflected on this point in the context of racing-bike design: “In racing, when you make a change, you only care whether or not it leads to superior performance. You tend to care less why something works. But over the long term you need to know why. This is the science.”

HBR Reprint R1104D

If the chief lesson of a successful project is a list of things to do the same way the next time, consider the exercise a failure.

74 Harvard Business Review April 2011

UNDERSTANDING FAILURE WHY LEADERS DON’T LEARN FROM SUCCESS

1038 Apr11 Gino.indd 741038 Apr11 Gino.indd 74 2/25/11 4:56:14 PM2/25/11 4:56:14 PM

Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009

Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for

the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material

in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may

not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any

other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on

learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning

management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content

available through such means. For rates and permission, contact permissions@harvardbusiness.org.

Applied Sciences
Architecture and Design
Biology
Business & Finance
Chemistry
Computer Science
Geography
Geology
Education
Engineering
English
Environmental science
Spanish
Government
History
Human Resource Management
Information Systems
Law
Literature
Mathematics
Nursing
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Reading
Science
Social Science
Liberty University
New Hampshire University
Strayer University
University Of Phoenix
Walden University
Home
Homework Answers
Blog
Archive
Tags
Reviews
Contact
twitterfacebook
Copyright © 2022 SweetStudy.com

Order Solution Now

Our Service Charter

1. Professional & Expert Writers: Topnotch Essay only hires the best. Our writers are specially selected and recruited, after which they undergo further training to perfect their skills for specialization purposes. Moreover, our writers are holders of masters and Ph.D. degrees. They have impressive academic records, besides being native English speakers.

2. Top Quality Papers: Our customers are always guaranteed of papers that exceed their expectations. All our writers have +5 years of experience. This implies that all papers are written by individuals who are experts in their fields. In addition, the quality team reviews all the papers before sending them to the customers.

3. Plagiarism-Free Papers: All papers provided byTopnotch Essay are written from scratch. Appropriate referencing and citation of key information are followed. Plagiarism checkers are used by the Quality assurance team and our editors just to double-check that there are no instances of plagiarism.

4. Timely Delivery: Time wasted is equivalent to a failed dedication and commitment. Topnotch Essay is known for timely delivery of any pending customer orders. Customers are well informed of the progress of their papers to ensure they keep track of what the writer is providing before the final draft is sent for grading.

5. Affordable Prices: Our prices are fairly structured to fit in all groups. Any customer willing to place their assignments with us can do so at very affordable prices. In addition, our customers enjoy regular discounts and bonuses.

6. 24/7 Customer Support: At Topnotch Essay, we have put in place a team of experts who answer to all customer inquiries promptly. The best part is the ever-availability of the team. Customers can make inquiries anytime.