Integrated Methodology for Lessons Learned
- Dr. Moria Levy
- Jan 1, 2004
- 7 min read
Knowledge Management Journal - there's no need to explain how important existing organizational knowledge management is. The topic is clear. No less important is developing new organizational knowledge. The development of new knowledge comprises three key components: establishing an organizational foundation to foster innovation, acquiring external knowledge, and extracting lessons learned to create new knowledge that builds upon existing knowledge.
This article discusses lessons learned. In future articles, we will discuss the other topics.
The process of extracting lessons learned is not a trivial task. It is not easy to extract lessons, and the reasons are many:
First, lessons learned extraction is usually performed after the event or process, and sometimes disconnected from it. People are already busy with other activities and don't have time to make themselves available, or sometimes they are physically available but mentally already elsewhere. Beyond this, it is easier for human nature, as well as for the modern organization, to deal with failures and investigate them than to investigate successes. The resulting implication is people's reluctance, driven by fear of investigation, fear of admitting failure, fear of misuse of what is said, and even for control purposes. Additionally, it is challenging to derive a valuable lesson from this experience. This involves a skill that is far from simple.
To develop a robust methodology for lessons learned, these components must be considered. Two central points must also be remembered:
Effective lessons learned extraction encompasses a significant portion of the organization's activities.
Effective lessons learned extraction includes means for reusing the learned knowledge.
These points led ROM Knowledgeware to formulate an integrated methodology that manages to combine 3 sub-methodologies for lessons learned extraction:
Investigation methodology (the methodology currently performed in most organizations).
Lessons learned from the extraction methodology in routine core work processes.
Shared learning methodology.
We will review each method individually.
Investigation
The investigation methodology is a classical approach used in most organizations that extracts lessons learned from Israel.
The main principles of the method include:
Preliminary stage: Defining conditions of what and when to investigate. Usually related to significant events in the organization.
Tip: Define according to the nature of the organization and the groups within it, the essence of the criteria as rigid criteria (investigate every event and activity according to predefined criteria), semi-rigid criteria (investigate unexpected events above size X), or soft criteria (each group investigates a significant event every quarter that it deems worthy).
First stage: The investigation itself begins with defining a fundamental question - the question being investigated. (Sometimes more than one question is asked.) The purpose of defining the question is to focus on the following stages. The question typically refers to an unexpected outcome that occurred during the event or activity being investigated. Example: After a fire incident, the question is asked: a) Could the fire have been prevented? b) What is the optimal treatment for a fire incident when it occurs?
Second stage: Collecting facts related to the investigation question. It's important to define in advance the order of fact collection (chronological order, by topics, etc.)
Tip: Be careful at this stage of not being overwhelmed by the quantity of facts collected and the level of investment involved in collecting them.
Tip: Be careful of tensions related to different interpretations by participants regarding the nature of the facts. These interpretations emerge when the results are negative, and everyone naturally views the facts from their subjective perspective.
Third stage: Defining findings based on the facts. The findings are a generalization of several facts into a meaningful statement.
Fourth stage: Concluding. Connecting cause and effect through a "drilling" process using the "why" question to reach root causes (and not symptoms).
Fifth stage: Extracting lessons that relate to desired future activity and generalizing them beyond the context in which they were received.
Sixth stage: Defining implementation tasks to realize the lessons in the organization.
Tip: Be cautious of one-time implementations, such as sending a notification to everyone or updating procedures, as they can have unintended consequences. Often, insufficient effort is invested in this method (when finally reaching the last stage) for comprehensive thinking about methods for embedding the lessons in the organization.
Tip: It's not advisable to immediately assign an action to a lesson, as this can lead to participants losing interest in completing tasks. It's recommended to first conduct brainstorming to extract all lessons, and only at its conclusion to define derivative activities in the appropriate places.
Lessons Learned Extraction in Routine Core Work Processes
The foundational point of this methodology is comprehensive, significant coverage. Classical investigation deals with the large and exceptional, while this method deals with the routine. However, since it's not possible to invest in lessons learned extraction in all organizational processes (and it's not always worthwhile), the focus is on routine core processes. Since the processes are routine, it will be possible to make extensive reuse of the lessons. Since these are core processes, the significance of dealing with them is high for the organization.
The main principles of the method include:
Preliminary stage: Definition and identification of complex routine core processes from which lessons can eventually be extracted. Analysis of the processes (stages, objectives, and outputs). Building a supporting documentation template for collecting facts and running the process in practice.
Tip: It's recommended to phase the implementation of this method in the organization, both at the level of the scope of supported processes and in the scope of the supporting template for each process.
Tip: It's recommended to include added value for the activity performer(s) in the templates to ensure immediate visibility of the benefit to them. This refers to locating letters, summaries, or any other necessary documents that employees need to produce during the work process and automating them so that they constitute ready output from the completed template without requiring additional investment from the user.
Activity stage: Performing the activity while documenting it in the template. The template includes guiding questions, ensuring that, at the end of the activity, ready-to-use lessons are available.
After stage: Incorporating the lessons and deciding how to integrate them back into the process, primarily within the template itself (as links, comments, and improvement of guidelines). The incorporation, incidentally, is done by a senior professional manager responsible for the process.
Examples of such core processes include preparing a price quote at all its stages, accompanying an advertising campaign, handling the rental of the organization's assets, product development, and more.
Shared Learning
The foundational point of this methodology is that sometimes we want to perform need-focused learning [we seek to improve topic X] and not focus specifically on what can be learned from the event/process/activity. Furthermore, we sometimes want to learn from a shared view of several events, activities, or processes, rather than from one specific one. The main principles of the method are based on this, including:
First stage: Decision on a painful topic or goal that we want to improve (for example, how to shorten project time), or a successful activity whose foundations we wish to replicate. It's essential that the topic not be one of a kind, but rather connected to other activities within the organization, where the lessons can be applied.
Second stage: Selection of a relevant group connected to the topic, capable of performing the thinking on one hand, and responsible for field implementation afterward, on the other hand.
Third stage: Opening the discussion with a description of an event/activity related to the topic being improved by one of the participants (preparation in advance). Raising additional events/activities associatively. Joint search, generalization, learning, and lessons learned extraction as an open discussion. In the background, a fundamental question that directs the discussion should stand before the participants' eyes.
Tip: Be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions and lessons (resulting from a lack of structure in the method).
Tip: If the discussion gets stuck and there are no lessons, it's recommended to use external simulations regarding the real events. The use of simulations allows us to break out of the framework and engage in creative thinking.
Below is a summarizing comparative table regarding the characteristics of all the methodologies:
Criteria | Investigation | Lessons Learned in Routine Core Work Processes | Shared Learning |
When appropriate? | After a significant event or activity from the organization's perspective | In support of a defined work process. Usually suitable for individual activity or where fixed responsibility and role can be defined for each participant. | On any recurring topic that can be learned from |
Methodology: | Organized and comprehensive | Organized | Unstructured |
Focus: | Question arising from a significant event or activity | All aspects related to the routine activity. | Need-focused. Discusses the topic they seek to improve. |
Organizational coverage: | Low. Usually doesn't deal with routine matters. Less implemented in successes. | Can cover a high percentage of routine core activity. | Can cover any topic that is not one-time. |
Resources: | Many resources: time, team. | Independent routine activity - saves team coordination. Requires a separate template for each topic. | Requires a strong facilitator (since the process is less structured). |
Facts: | Late interpretation. Sometimes there are different interpretations. | Facts are written in real time. Usually objectivity is maintained. | Each person chooses which facts to present themselves. No emphasis on facts but on thinking and resulting ideas. |
Atmosphere: | Fear of investigation connotation | Atmosphere is not an influencing factor | Positive atmosphere |
Skill: | Remains with the leading team | Gradual learning of all users of the technique | "Natural" skill that the facilitator brings |
Direct output: | Complete lessons regarding fundamental questions | More topics examined, fewer lessons per topic | Lessons related to the examined topic |
Side output: | Investigation documentation | Documented knowledge base of the activity | Creating a shared thinking process. |
It is recommended not to adopt just one methodology, but to consider how to integrate different methodologies to achieve maximum and optimal results within the organization.
Furthermore, we must remember that our ultimate goal is to extract lessons and implement them in future activities within the organization; therefore, any method that encourages the learning and application of lessons within the organization is welcome. There is no point in having this or that method presented here become an end in itself. Overall, these are additional means and another path toward the goal. Good luck!
Comments