Every company follows a particular method which enables its growth into a big company. Having comparing all the contemporary big giants, substantially, we can conclude on what all these companies have in common. All these companies have the attitude of willing to fail and fix at the start. This motto has been the sole driver of their ascendancy. On one hand, these companies are not entirely similar to the industries of the 20th century. On the other hand, a rise in a large number of technology companies may also one of the reasons which render the author's statement. I will provide three reasons for support which I will elaborate on in the following paragraphs.
First of all, since the rise of the technological boom, this particular strategy has taken over the industry. Particularly, it was born in silicon valley, which is the birthplace of all technological companies. Venture capitalists, who fund various startups, encourage innovators to fail at the start. Because failing at start would be less dire and even easy to fix with less effort and less cost, thereby reducing the loss that might occur in the future. Similarly, large companies are always under
constant threat of failure that might lead to their instant dissolution. Although big companies have a lot of advanced infrastructures, which may render ease in fixing the flaws but in reality, this could lead to the downfall of the company. For these reasons, everyone is willing to fail as soon as possible i.e., fixing at a nascent stage is easier. Recently I have heard an interview with Instagram CEO, Evan Speigel. While explaining his journey in paving the path from a small garage-made
application to a billion-dollar company, he said that he always believed in the motto 'Fail Fast Fix Fast' for the above-mentioned reasons.
Secondly, however, all these are confined to technological companies only and the process is different for another type of industry. When it comes to factories that contain a lot of mechanical or electronic equipment, this trend is inept. For instance, considering a car manufacturing plant as an example for clarification on the concept. In such types of industries, there is no scope of failing at start because all one has to do is gather the equipment and assemble the parts in sequence. The original error is caused during the middle stages of production, which might be the failure of particular equipment. Significantly, as these both industries operate in a different way, we cannot compare both in a strict manner.
In conclusion, though this type of working model is being embraced by everyone, it is partly dissimilar to the way many conventional industries operate. Nevertheless, we can say that this particular method of failing fast has become popular and also has the potential to save a lot of money. It has been producing good results for the culmination of the many startups and founders as well as investors by not making them to divest in many companies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 471, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...h century. On the other hand, a rise in a large number of technology companies may also one of th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 555, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...lso one of the reasons which render the authors statement. I will provide three reasons...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 662, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a different way" with adverb for "different"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...antly, as these both industries operate in a different way, we cannot compare both in a strict man...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 705, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a strict manner" with adverb for "strict"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...a different way, we cannot compare both in a strict manner. In conclusion, though this type of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, similarly, so, well, while, as to, for instance, in conclusion, as well as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 43.0788530466 81% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 52.1666666667 138% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2496.0 1977.66487455 126% => OK
No of words: 496.0 407.700716846 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03225806452 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96280708222 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 212.727598566 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528225806452 0.524837075471 101% => OK
syllable_count: 790.2 618.680645161 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 9.59856630824 135% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6003584229 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.129541456 48.9658058833 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.84 100.406767564 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.84 20.6045352989 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.45110844103 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.53405017921 132% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.88709677419 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0463293859252 0.236089414692 20% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0130357183834 0.076458572812 17% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.020388592852 0.0737576698707 28% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.022126603853 0.150856017488 15% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.018516567642 0.0645574589148 29% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 11.7677419355 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 58.1214874552 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 10.9000537634 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 86.8835125448 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.