Conducting lessons learned in the classical method ultimately translates into two main products: lessons and tasks to be executed.
What distinguishes lessons and tasks from other parts of the review is that unlike the previous parts (fact gathering, finding development, and conclusions) which deal with the past, lessons and tasks relate to the future, assuming their implementation will advance the organization and ensure both reuse of accumulated knowledge and the reproduction of successes while avoiding the repetition of mistakes.
The difficulty at this review stage is the lack of clarity between these two components - lesson and task.
To try to clarify, let's return to the definitions of the concepts themselves:
A lesson is an emphasis or guideline for recommended future conduct (positive or negative).
A task is a one-time action that needs to be performed.
From these definitions, the central difference stands out: while a lesson defines the knowledge pieces and details themselves, the task is the means to ensure the reuse of knowledge created in the lessons learned process. As a result, once performed, the task no longer has value as an independent item; it is one-time, specific, and targeted.
Another difference between the two lies in the practical use of lessons and tasks: good and quality lessons will find their place in the insights repository, some in the form of "do" and "don't" tips, and some in the form of Best Practices. Tasks will be handled within the organization's existing task tracking processes.
The main challenge in the lesson stage is to form a broad consensus about the lesson, ensure it has added value and is not trivial, strive to generalize it as much as possible, and, above all, ensure it is practical.
The challenges in the task stage are identifying responsible parties for execution, setting timelines for implementation, and, above all, choosing the right type of task.
The better we understand what type of task we need to formulate, the better we will perform it and ensure the achievement of our goal—creating new knowledge while reproducing successes and avoiding repetition of mistakes.
There are several main needs for which we will define tasks:
Maximizing the lesson - When the lesson learned during the extraction process is incomplete, a team should be appointed to deeply examine the problem and propose solutions for its implementation. For example: When it becomes clear that the failure resulted from flaws in the work process, a team should be appointed to thoroughly examine the process in question and propose solutions to improve it.
Correction following the lesson - Sometimes the lesson requires future corrections and present ones. In this case, correction tasks will be defined according to importance and urgency. For example: When investigating a customer complaint, if it was discovered that one of the factors contributing to the failure is the absence of a customer manager, a customer manager should be appointed immediately; there is no need to wait for the "future."
Tool for implementing the lesson - It is a general term for converting the lesson into written instruction or procedure, publishing it widely, and verifying its use. For example: When an investigation reveals that there is no uniformity regarding handling a customer who asks to speak with the CEO, a procedure should be written defining how to handle such requests, ensure its publication through various platforms available to the organization (email, portal), implement it through training (mention in briefings and team meetings, for instance) and verify that it is indeed being carried out by examining its implementation after a period. Writing the procedure is a task.
In conclusion, in most cases, lessons do not stand alone but lead to tasks for execution. From our experience, complete and absolute lessons are few, with the central dilemma focusing on defining the tasks themselves and choosing the appropriate type to ensure the implementation of lessons as part of the overall work process.
Comments