How to identify, select and plan a KM pilot project

I've blogged before about using 'pilot projects' to introduce knowledge management (KM) into an organisation.  That post (here) explained their use in terms of building support for KM and thereby slowly changing the culture. 

Purpose

A KM pilot project seeks to introduce and combine a number of KM elements to address a specific business problem.  This has two key benefits:

• It enables the wider KM implementation effort to trial, test and adjust KM framework elements before rolling them out to the entire organisation, thereby minimising disruption and cost;
• It alleviates problems and wins further investment from senior management, as well as creating 'good news' stories with which KM can be sold to the wider organisation as part of a communications plan.

Let's now look at how we might identify, select and plan such a project.  Since we at Knoco currently have 4 clients at various stages of this process, I thought this would be worth exploring....

Identification
First off, run a workshop at which current business issues can be discussed and a shortlist of viable pilots selected.  The following steps might come in handy:

• Send out calling notice across the organisation, inviting functional leads and/or senior managers to present and discuss their current 'pain points' - a rough agenda at this stage;
• Book venue, facilitator, workshop 'stuff' (i.e. flipcharts, post-its, pens etc.);
• Send out confirmatory notice, with a finalised agenda;
• Suggested workshop agenda:
• Introductions - of one another
• Introduction to knowledge management (KM) - to create a common understanding
• KM tools, processes, approaches - to show what KM elements involve and achieve
• KM case-studies - to demonstrate how KM alleviates problems and creates value
• Presentations - each team or department describes their current issues 
• Discussion - combinations of KM elements are suggested for each problem, for example:
• Retrospects - to identify lessons from each 'turn of the wheel'
• Interviews - with key experts in the specific functional area
• Knowledge exchanges - to share knowledge on a specific business problem
• Knowledge assets - a 'go to' place with all best practice, guidance, tips etc.

Selection

Having identified a number of areas where KM might help, a system of voting and selection is needed to enable a KM pilot project to be planned.  This can happen at the above workshop or afterwards, based on written-up notes etc.  Methods may vary, but a number of criteria should be considered to enable each potential pilot to be judged fairly.  The following are suggestions only - there will be others:

• Business impact
• Is knowledge a key factor in delivering business performance?
• Will the impact of the knowledge be demonstrated in a short enough time?
• Business advocacy
• Is there a local business sponsor?
• Will there be a local person accountable for the delivery of the KM project?
• Transferability and reach
• Do cross-business customers exist for the knowledge gained from the project?
• Will the knowledge and learnings from the project have strategic potential for growth?
• Feasibility
• Can we make time/space for people to work on the project?
• Do we have enough skilled KM resources available?

Each potential pilot project can be awarded scores against each of these criteria, with the highest 3 shortlisted for further scope definition and a GO/NO GO decision from senior management.

Planning

Having selected a KM pilot project, we must now plan it.  This will require a number of in-depth conversations with key stakeholders, to understand fully the current business context and then formalise a planned response.

The output from these inter-actions will be terms of reference document and implementation plan, covering:

• Context - why is this happening?
• Scope - what is included?  What is not?
• Stakeholders - who's involved?
• Governance - who's in charge?
• Approach - how do we do this?
• Resources - who can help?
• Costs - how much?
• Schedule - when and in what order?
• Deliverables - what will we have to show for our efforts?
• Benefits - how much value will we create?
• Metrics - how do we measure success?

The costs and benefits can be presented in a business case, which is a discrete activity in its own right and which I will examine in greater depth in another post.

For a conversation about knowledge management pilot projects, or about anything to do with KM, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

Leading the way - latest Knoco newsletter - KM and leadership

The latest Knoco newsletter on the relationship between Knowledge Management (KM) and leadership is now out!

Follow this link for:

• How does leadership affect KM?
• What do good and bad KM leadership look like?
• How to manage leaders in lessons capture meetings
• How to win leaders' support
• The power of the 'CEO video'
• KM tools to deliver good leadership
• News from around the Knoco family

For a conversation about KM leadership, please get in touch direct or visit the Knoco website.

Let's compete with those outside, sure but not with our team-mates, colleagues etc...

I recently conducted a KM assessment at a multinational chemicals firm, interviewing over 20 people with varying levels of experience, seniority and from across all functional teams.  The aim is to understand what KM capabilities are in place, how well they are doing and what’s missing.  One of the things we look at, when assessing a client’s KM governance, is the culture of the place.

What is it like to work there?  What do people think about KM?  What do senior managers think about it?  How are mistakes and errors viewed?  Is there a ‘blame culture’ or a ‘learning culture’?  Also, is there any internal competition between individuals, teams or departments?  How willing are people to share knowledge and information with one another?  To what extent does the maxim, ‘knowledge is power’ hold sway?

Regular readers of this blog will recall my review of Margaret Heffernan’s excellent book, ‘Wilful Blindness’ in which she examined many examples of organisations where leaders either don’t want to hear the truth or the led don’t want to tell it.  This phenomenon, common to many (most?!) organisations, is caused by a view that passing on bad or embarrassing news leads to unpopularity, demotion, or even getting fired.
In the excellent ‘Ted talk’ linked below, Margaret discusses how successful teams (and wider organisations) are those where there is a desire to help one another with knowledge and information.  She doesn’t mention the term ‘knowledge management’ but the positive examples she offers (i.e. chicken farming, engineering, responses to environmental regulations) would, if assessed using our methodology, get high ‘KM governance’ scores.
Four more quick points:

·        It’s not about technology – Margaret Heffernan recognises that technology is just an enabler and achieves absolutely nothing without the right people, processes and governance in place;

·        Knowing one another – She argues that people have to know one another in order to establish trust as well as knowing who has what skills, knowledge and experience.  I would argue that, whilst true, shortening this time is possible, not least by senior managers who lead by personal example rather than directive;

·        “Companies don’t have ideas, only people do” – Again, this is true but one of the key ‘lightbulb’ moments for senior managers on a KM journey comes when they realise that the ideas generated within their organisations should be at least be ‘possessed’ by the company. However, most knowledge remains locked in the heads of people who refuse to share it because the status quo has made it clear there is no incentive (or supporting culture) for them to do so.  So what?  Organisations should:

o   Reward teams for sharing their knowledge instead of hoarding it;

o   Create knowledge assets for the critical knowledge areas;

o   Build Communities of Practice around knowledge areas where there is strength in depth;

o   Retain experts’ knowledge rather than letting it walk out of the door when they do;

·        “Conflict is frequent because candour is safe” – yes, yes, yes.  Being honest is often hard, especially when discussing things we wish had turned out differently.  But in environments where honesty is rewarded over success, or dishonesty punished before failure, people can challenge old ideas, as well as new ones – in such places, real innovation is possible.

If you’d like to chat about these ideas, tools or more with some knowledge management consultants, please get in touch, either direct or via the Knoco website.

10 things you've been doing wrong

I came across this little video online today, explaining how most of us have been doing some everyday tasks all wrong - or, rather, simply haven't cottoned on to smarter ways of doing them.

I reckon this is because many of us like to come up with the ideas ourselves, and don't like being told how to do anything, by anyone. Such attitudes are commonplace, and are often one of the reasons why knowledge management (KM) takes a while to catch on.

Wanting to create our own solutions to problems is an essential part of what makes us human but we can all think of examples where this approach is inappropriate, perhaps even dangerous.

Fancy learning how to handle a weapon? Mate, here's a rifle...crack on.

What's that? You want to operate the drilling equipment on an oil rig? Sure, fill your boots, sport.

Good KM implementation requires patience, energy and judgement - knowing when and where it's right to be creative and to 'empower learning' and when we simply have to follow current best practice. There are times and places for innovation and neither the rifle range or operational rig are one of them.

For a conversation about how to get the balance right between innovation and best practice, visit the Knoco website.

'Ello, 'ello, what's all this then? Rewarded for knowing, or for sharing also?

Today the UK’s College of Policing published a report following a review into leadership, with recommendations to improve performance across the police service.  Details are available on their website here.
Regular readers of the blog will recall our examination (here) of the Hillsborough Inquiry and the issues it raised about honesty, defensiveness and poor police leadership.  So it is great to see serious efforts to address some of these issues.

In the report, there are some ideas that will appeal to those keen to learn from other’s experiences and manage their knowledge more effectively.
One encouraging point, on how the review was conducted, is revealed thus, “The review recognised the importance of capturing the lessons of leadership development from the widest range of sectors outside policing.”  So far, so good – using lessons is almost always a good idea, and to seek them from ‘outsiders’ introduces new perspectives and guards against ‘group-think’, one of the dangers highlighted in Margaret Heffernan’s excellent book, ‘Wilful Blindness’, which I reviewed here.
Welcoming fresh inputs is further encouraged through the recommendation for “a structure where officers and staff can exit and re-enter the service, bringing with them their new skills and experience.”
The value of skills, experience and knowledge is recognised in further recommendations, such as:

·        “Existing police leaders should influence and drive the required culture of change by demonstrating their own commitment to personal development….;

·        Develop career opportunities which allow recognition and reward for advanced practitioners.

·        Offering staff and officers reward and recognition for advanced skills and knowledge. We recommend that the Home Office should consider what amendments to pay and conditions are required to allow professional expertise to be appropriately recognised and rewarded.”

Again, that’s all well and good but, without explicit encouragement and enforcement of knowledge-sharing and collaboration, there is a danger that these proposals will result merely in rewarding people for what they know, without further recognition for what they share.
Incentivising the accrual of knowledge without any balancing expectation that it be shared produces employees that are reluctant to help others, or will only do so when they can spare the time (i.e. rarely).
This is common across many organisations, where the unintended consequences of rewarding knowledge are disincentives to share, reluctance to be honest and open (especially about shortcomings) and expensive losses when those with the know-how depart, leaving the remainder struggling to fill that gap.
Far better for the recommendations to read thus (my edits in bold):

·        “Existing police leaders should influence and drive the required culture of change by demonstrating their own commitment to personal development, openness and collaboration.”

·        “Develop career opportunities which allow recognition and reward for advanced practitioners that gain new knowledge and actively seek to share it as they do so.”

·        “Offering staff and officers reward and recognition for advanced skills and knowledge. We recommend that the Home Office should consider what amendments to pay and conditions are required to allow the accumulation and sharing of professional expertise to be appropriately recognised and rewarded.”

Such recommendations, just by their wording, would send the signal that hard-won knowledge must be valued, shared and used by all.  Once implemented, they would be an important part in wider efforts to create and nurture a true learning culture.
Further material on leadership, culture, knowledge-transfer and retention is available at the Knoco website.

When will they ever learn? How KM can help our politicians....

Here in the UK, the dust is settling after the most surprising general election result for over 20 years.  All pollsters, commentators and the politicians themselves thought we were heading for a hung parliament.  But they were wrong.

The media had even set up studios opposite the Houses of Parliament that were thought necessary to cover the anticipated negotiations between parties that had not managed to win an overall majority.  The awnings and scaffolding are being taken down this weekend.

David Cameron, the Conservative Party has won a majority whilst the Scottish National Party (SNP) has taken all but 3 parliamentary seats in Scotland.  The Labour Party lost 10% of its Members of Parliament (MP), including several senior figures that had thought they would be Cabinet members by now.  The Liberal Democrats lost 47 MPs, retaining a paltry 8.  The UK Independence Party (UKIP), punished by the first-past-the-post electoral system, polled nearly 4 million votes yet now has only one MP – a perhaps unfair quirk of FPTP requiring concentration of votes more than numbers alone. (For example, the SNP polled a third of UKIP’s number of votes yet added 50 MPs to its numbers because of this clustering).

The obvious fall-out so far?

·        Ed Miliband has resigned as leader of The Labour Party;

·        Nick Clegg has resigned as leader of The Liberal Democrats;

·        Nigel Farage has resigned as leader of UKIP;

·        An independent inquiry will examine how the pre-election opinion polls got it so wrong.

Much of media discussion since the election has focused on these negative consequences (for those concerned, naturally) and speculation over what lessons can be learned.  Many presume that Labour and the Liberal Democrats in particular now have to examine what went wrong and try to put it right in time for the next election, scheduled for 2020.

This analysis is not wrong but it is unhelpful for those of us that use knowledge management (KM) in general and ‘lessons learned’ in particular to improve performance.  (A comprehensive look at lessons and what should be done with them to drive performance starts here.)

Why unhelpful?  Because it reinforces the idea that lessons are negative and that we only learn when we make mistakes.  We can and should learn when things go according to plan also.  Where outcomes exceed expectations there is surely an even greater need to learn why, to ensure that such success is repeated and not wasted?

It is not just the ‘losers’ that should try to identify lessons but the ‘winners’ as well.

So, whilst David Cameron is selecting his new Government, and Nicola Sturgeon (i.e. the leader of the SNP) plans how to use the enhanced influence her Westminster MPs will bring her, they should also set in train the processes by which we learn from recent events.

Team-based After Action Reviews should be held, as well as larger Retrospects.  Key individuals should be interviewed and the knowledge of highest value (i.e. how to campaign; how to record voting intentions; how to target key voters; how to win!), identified, captured, shared and any good practice replicated and embedded within party procedures.  Knowledge Assets and Learning Histories should be created or updated.  Party workers approaching retirement or those leaving for pastures new should contribute also.  There is much that can be done, although this may not seem necessary to some.  Indeed, whilst the ‘losers’ plainly see the need for change, those happy with the results might not. 

Moreover, there is the risk that obvious successes might obscure mistakes that have been made but which seem inconsequential in the warm glow of victory.  Failing to identify and address these now might mean victory is not repeated.

Real adaptive learning is hard enough in commercial organisations, with those implementing KM initiatives often needing to be ‘politically savvy’ and well-attuned to the dominant culture.  In the world of actual politics, red in tooth and claw, it might appear all but impossible.

Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen but it does mean expert advice would be useful.

If any recently depressed or elated politician wants such advice, please contact Knoco for help!

The 10 principles behind successful KM strategy implementation

I’ve just finished reading ‘Designing a Successful KM Strategy’ by Stephanie Barnes and Nick Milton.

I’ll review it in due course but for now, thought the 10 principles listed in Chapter 4 were worth listing here:

1.      KM implementation needs to be organisation-led; tied to organisation strategy and to specific organisation issues.
2.      KM needs to be delivered where the critical knowledge lies, and where the high value decisions are made.
3.      KM implementation needs to be treated as a behaviour change programme.
4.      The endgame will be to introduce a complete management framework for KM.
5.      The framework will need to be embedded into the organisation structures.
6.      The framework will need to include governance if it is to be sustainable.
7.      The framework is to be structured, rather than emergent.
8.      KM implementation should be a staged process, with regular decision points.
9.      KM implementation should contain a piloting stage.
10.   KM implementation should be run by an implementation team, reporting to a cross-organisational steering group.

I’ll look at these in more detail in my next post.

To discuss how to design and implement a KM strategy, please get in touch or visit the Knoco website.

How do large companies manage knowledge? Put it in the small print!

Today I met with the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of a large telecommunications company (telco) here in the UK.

Whilst the details of our chat remain confidential, a brief over-view of some of the issues might resonate with others that are also having to manage knowledge and information in vast quantities whilst relying on large numbers of contractors and service providers.

Our conversation focused on the realities of managing knowledge in an organisation where the majority of the work is done by external suppliers.  At the company in question, 300 permanent headcount are managing, and supported by, over 50 suppliers, at a ratio of 1:8 (i.e. 8 outsourced people for every permanent one).
Issues include:
·        Lack of in-house knowledge, especially of a complex technical nature.  One pertinent example was that of a 10 year contract, currently in its eighth year, with a large IT firm.  The product at the heart of this contract has evolved so much that the client company now lacks sufficient knowledge to be able to use a different supplier.  However, having learned from this, the client now insists that contracts ensure that it retains ownership of any intellectual property (IP).  Also, it has stipulated that it retains responsibility for Enterprise Architecture governance (i.e. alignment of IT development with business strategic goals) as well as requiring its supplier to update the client’s own product artefacts (i.e. akin to knowledge assets).  Despite these measures, the CIO conceded that its own in-house knowledge base is insufficient, leaving it vulnerable to some of its suppliers.
·        The risk of knowledge loss has been met by requiring suppliers to ‘pair programmers’.  This is effectively an in-built redundancy which ensures continuity of effort in the event of sickness or unplanned departure.  This initiative has improved both speed of development and quality of product and these benefits have outweighed what initially appears to be a costly headcount.  A further measure designed to mitigate the risk of supplier dependence is that of retaining the right to interview and approve anyone provided by the supplier to work for the client.  As working relationships have strengthened and deepened, this right has been exercised only for key senior positions.
·        The lessons identified from the performance reviews of large contracts (i.e. of which the previous points are but two examples) inform the client’s supplier strategy, which is itself reviewed on an annual basis.  This ensures that learning from one contractual relationship can be carried over to others, where appropriate and practical to do so.
·        All projects are subject to Project Implementation Reviews (PIR), during which lessons are captured and documented.  Where necessary, actions are assigned to embed the learning, with the governance provided by the Project Management Office (PMO) ensuring that such retrospective learning happens consistently.
·        However, interestingly there appeared to be few examples of ‘learning before’ projects (i.e. whereby a new Project Manager actively uses historic lessons and experienced personnel to ensure the new project repeats previous good practice and does not repeat past mistakes).  Indeed, the preference for “starting with a clean sheet” appeared to be a cultural phenomenon but my host conceded that this ‘wheel re-invention’ must be costly, in terms of both time and money.
Overall, it was a useful insight into how this telco is using the contracts with its suppliers to manage its knowledge.  They're not doing everything right and there are some glaring gaps in its KM tool-set but at least they're trying - many organisations don't even bother.
I shall now follow up with some information about KM plans, Peer Assists and some thoughts on how to develop a learning culture.
For more information about these and other KM tools, please visit the Knoco website.

Happy New Year! 10 KM Resolutions

1.   Before starting a new piece of work, I will try to find out who has done it before.
2.   When things go off-track, I will encourage people to speak freely so we can do things better next time round.
3.   When finishing a piece of work, I will try to find who can benefit from what I’ve learned.
4.   As a leader, I will try to listen more.

5.   As a junior, I will try to be heard more.

6.   Before moving on, changing jobs or retiring, I will make time to hand over to my successor.

7.   I will write down a list of all those jobs that only I can do and start writing up procedures.

8.   As a leader, I need to know how things really are, so will let people be honest with me.

9.   As a junior, I need to tell it how it is, so will be honest with those above me.

10. I will never forget that I can always learn, from everything I do and everyone I meet.

For a conversation about how Knowledge Management (KM) can help you improve performance and protect your key assets, please get in touch direct or via the Knoco website.

'Wilful Blindness' by Margaret Heffernan - a review

.
Where to start with this book?  It's brilliant.
Margaret Heffernan is a businesswoman, writer and academic whose book, ‘Wilful Blindness’ examines how individuals and organisations alike fail to see or acknowledge things that common sense or hindsight suggests should have been obvious.

In the field of Knowledge Management (KM), we often encounter issues that cause, or have been caused by, such poor vision.  Lessons capture workshop discussions usually reveal facts that were known to all but were never acknowledged at the time when to do so might have made a difference.  Furthermore, the reluctance or inability of some organisations to act upon such lessons can be partly explained by the ideas explored in this book.

Using examples from personal relationships, academic experiments, oil companies, the City, the military and healthcare, the book sets out many different ways in which we blind ourselves to what is happening:

·        Affinity and ‘love is blind’ – the book starts with us as individuals, exploring the concepts of ‘affinity’ and love blindness – whereby we usually end up in relationships similar to us and allow our feelings for partners, family or friends to obscure certain negative aspects of their lives (e.g. unpleasant traits or even health problems).

·        Ideology, convictions and cognitive dissonance – ideologies provide a framework within which we try to make sense of the world but when facts appear to contradict our interpretation, many of us will ignore them as inconvenient or will refuse to act in ways that go against our beliefs, because to do so would force us to admit such beliefs are flawed.

·        Tiredness and distractions – there is a limit to how many hours of work anyone can do before becoming tired.  Furthermore, chronic tiredness (i.e. the result of a lack of sleep over many days or weeks) can result not just in ‘blindness’ but hallucination.  The book also looks at the ‘myth of multi-tasking’ and sets out how we can actually only focus on a limited number of activities or information feeds at any one time.  Against such a backdrop, the case for well-rested aircrew and bans on mobile phone use whilst driving makes a lot of sense.

·        ‘Sticking one’s head in the sand’ – like the myth of the ostrich, we refuse to acknowledge information that, deep down, we know will require us to act.  As individuals we let debts accrue, ignoring the letters from the bank and loan companies.  We indulge in habits such as smoking, drinking and tanning despite the evidence of harm.  Within organisations, people often prefer the status quo to change and so remain silent, not wanting to ‘rock the boat’.

·        ‘Blind obedience’ – strict hierarchies enable effective execution of strategy but without feedback mechanisms or the ability for employees to exercise discretion, unintended consequences are common.  It’s not just military orders that result in unforeseen outcomes, poorly-designed business targets also lead to short-cuts, accidents and death.

·        Cultural conformity – cultures can be positive and enabling just as they can be negative and restrictive.  In the latter case, the unspoken, implied requirements to conform inhibit employees’ creativity, restrict free discussion between them and lead them towards tribalism and ‘groupthink’.  In such environments, anything approaching honesty is tantamount to career suicide.

·        By-standers – the book reveals that when passing someone having a heart attack in a busy street, most people will walk on by, each presuming that someone else will deal the situation.  However, when faced with such a situation on one’s own, most people will try to help.  Additionally, scrutiny actually reduces with every extra layer of oversight.  Again, this is partly explained by a reluctance to stand out, a fear of embarrassment and a presumption that others know better than oneself.  This chapter notably concludes with a chilling letter from a farmer, complaining of having to witness the brutal treatment of prisoners at the nearby Mauthausen concentration camp in World War Two Austria at which, he wrote,

“…inmates are being shot repeatedly; those badly struck live for yet some time, and so remain lying next to the dead for hours and even half a day long.  My property lies upon an elevation next to the Vienna Ditch and one is often an unwilling witness to such outrages.  I am anyway sickly and such a sight makes such a demand on my nerves that in the long run I cannot bear this.  I request that it be arranged that such inhuman deeds be discontinued, or else be done where one does not have to see it.”

·        Out of sight, out of mind – distanced leadership cannot lead; at least, not in the fullest sense of the word.  Remote leaders can be geographically removed from the bulk of their staff but also by structure and attitude.  Just as organisations can be structurally dysfunctional, so the behaviour of management filters out unwelcome truths, reducing yet further its chances of making well-informed decisions.

·        Cassandras and whistle-blowers – perhaps the most depressing chapter is devoted to those brave few that not only see what is happening around them but are prepared to tell others.  To begin with, they use the proper internal channels and find their concerns ignored, belittled or denied – some are sacked at even this point.  Then they resort to leaking information to the media, risking the wrath of their former employers and colleagues whose guilt leads them to attack the messenger.

Margaret Heffernan concludes by suggesting what organisations (businesses, notably) can do to “see better”.  Obviously, with so many ways in which we can hide the truth from ourselves and others, some significant effort is required so that those with the power to make decisions do so with all the facts before them.
We’ll look at these ideas in a future blog post.
For now, suffice to say that this is an excellent book for anyone interested in management, leadership, politics or those with a curiosity about why some things go wrong and how we can learn from them. 
My only slight criticism relates to a couple of minor assertions that appear to belie the author’s own political viewpoint instead of flowing from rational argument but then, as she is good enough to concede, we all have our own biases.
To discuss how your organisation learns, if at all, or to explore how KM can help it to avoid some of the issues discussed here, please visit for the Knoco website or contact me direct.

The expeditionary operation is dead. Long live the expeditionary operation!

The British contribution to the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan has ended.

 

I served in Afghanistan in the hot and bloody summer of 2008 and left the place convinced that what we were doing was (a) right and (b) working.

I then worked for 3 years in the British Army’s Lessons Exploitation Centre (LXC), helping the Army try to learn from the Afghanistan operation.  Indeed, it was at the LXC that I learnt about Knowledge Management (KM) and Organisational Learning (OL).  Much of what the Army has done in these difficult areas is to its credit and it is rightly considered something of a world-leader in its efforts to learn and share the knowledge that its learning generates.

I have written at length about these efforts elsewhere and a detailed account how the Army tries to learn is available here.

However, my 3 years at the LXC led me to question why such considerable efforts led to so little achievement.  Why did so many varied and costly inputs produce so few valuable outputs?

My conclusion was that the British Army lacks a learning culture and should try to develop one.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because it does not permit dissent, constructive or otherwise.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because senior officers sing their own praises and those of their soldiers but shy away from self-criticism, thereby most definitely ‘leading by example’ and demonstrating that such frankness and honesty is not the way to get ahead.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because of the ‘can do’ attitude that leads all combat arm officers worth their salt to agree to missions for which they have not been sufficiently well prepared, trained or equipped.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because the current difficult operation quickly loses its appeal and the next one will finally be the chance to do things right.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because every venture has to be successful – we always win…we can’t be seen to make mistakes…we can’t lose face.

In his searing account of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, 'Losing Small Wars', Frank Ledwidge quoted one high-flying officer’s analysis of the outcome of the British Army’s efforts in Basra thus, “We were defeated, pure and simple.”  And yet the public narrative at the time was one of ‘work well done’, ‘worthwhile sacrifices’ and soldiers, sailors and airmen and women of whom ‘we can all be rightly proud’.

To do otherwise, to question (let alone criticize) such efforts is seen as ‘doing a disservice’ to the fallen, or being ‘disloyal’ to one’s former colleagues, or basically contorted in any way possible to deflect from the very real possibility that it was one massive mistake.

And so it is today. With the final troops now leaving Camp Bastion, the message being pushed is that we did a good job, that we can be proud and that we have displayed the utmost professionalism etc etc.  For example, listen to this interview from BBC Radio 4’s ‘The World at One’, between Martha Kearney and Major General Richard Nugee, the current Deputy Commander of ISAF’s Kabul HQ.

Utter rubbish.

Brooking no criticism, permitting no honest enquiry into performance and enabling no consideration of courses of action beyond the safe and self-protecting is no way to learn.

As I have done before, I have to conclude once more with these words, from (formerly) Major Giles Harris DSO, quoted in Toby Harnden’s book, ‘Dead Men Risen’,  

“The British are very good at whipping ourselves into a sense of achievement….we almost have to, to make it bearable.  You can’t do something like this and analyse it all the way through and think: “Actually we got that wrong.”  You just can’t.  It takes so much emotional investment.  I’m not saying we lie to ourselves but there’s an element of telling yourself that it’s all right and it’s going well, just to keep going.”[1]

Such honesty.  We need more of it.

---

[1] Toby Harnden, ‘Dead Men Risen’, Page 558.