Negotiating with a 4-year old (or, how knowledge assets can help us all)

Everyday knowledge assets

Regular readers of this blog will know that a 'knowledge asset' is a term used by those of us working in knowledge management (KM) to describe a tool containing key knowledge on a critical topic.  We create such assets using knowledge capture processes (i.e. Interviews, Retrospects etc.) and then display and structure the knowledge in as 'user-friendly' a way as possible.

The aim of a knowledge asset is not to create a record for posterity or for knowledge-holders to 'dump' everything they know into one place.  Rather, it is aimed at the 'knowledge customer' - i.e. the person who needs certain knowledge in a format that will help them when they need it.

The following are examples of everyday knowledge assets:

• 'How to' guides
• Assembly instructions for newly-purchased tools, toys, equipment etc.
• Recipes
• Etc.

We can all think of examples of when we have used such resources and found them to be unhelpful.  Often this is because they:

• Lack sufficient detail
• Contain only text where images would help, especially on key processes
• Use terms that don't make sense to us, the user

In short, these issues all have the same root cause - namely, that the guidance material has not been produced with the end-user in mind.  Or at least, has not been proof-read by someone that knows nothing about the topic.  This 'ignorance' is helpful because it reveals any hidden assumptions on the part of either the person with the knowledge or the person creating the asset (they are often not the same person - did you think Gordon Ramsay wrote his own recipes?!).

You will recall that I described the main beneficiary of a knowledge asset as "the person who needs certain knowledge in a format that will help them when they need it".  This is a broad definition and rightly so - knowledge assets can be vast, complex, structured works that take a project team from a bare piece of land to a complete and full-functioning new airport, or they can simply save someone a bit of time and a bit of stress - it depends on the need, the value, and the resources and time available.

Below is a simple example of how a knowledge asset can be used to save a bit of time and quite a lot of stress....

'Pictures paint a thousand words'

Picture the scene - a family getting ready for a day out, to meet far-off relatives:

Mother: "Come and sit down and let me do your hair!  How shall we do it today?  Shall we do the fish-tail plait?"

Daughter (aged 4): "What's that?  Doesn't sound very nice..."

Mother: "It's lovely.  You like it.  It's where the plait has two sides to it that meet in the middle....come and sit down, we haven't got much time!"

Daughter: "What does it look like?"

Mother: "I've just told you.  Sit down!"

Daughter: "Show me...."
Mother: "I can't show you!  I can only do it and then show you in the mirror.  Sit down!"

And so on for far longer than one would want, with everyone getting frustrated....

It was at this point that I had a brainwave (he adds, modestly).  Once my wife had finally negotiated the finishing of
said fish-tail plait, I took a photo of it for future reference.  Since then, each variation of hairstyle (i.e. plaits, pony-tails, bunches etc.) has been photographed such that now, it takes only a few seconds for Mother and Daughter to agree on the style of the day, without the noise and commotion and disagreement that we all suffered before we used this very simple knowledge asset.

Of course, for the analogy to work 100%, we would need to add guidance notes, diagrams, FAQs, videos etc. all of which would help others perform this 'essential task'.

Now, remove hairdressing scenario with a four-year old daughter and replace with any high-pressure situation where details need to be communicated to a workforce lacking fluent English - diagrams, photos and other imagery can help convey methods, finished products and variants thereof.  It's not hard to see how a little bit of effort up-front can make things so much easier further down the line.

For a chat about how knowledge assets can help save you time, money and reduce stress, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

Have you hit the KM roadbump? 2 cracking analogies and one more killer quote to get you over it.

Knowledge management (KM) remains unknown to most organisations and the people that work within them.  Consequently, those of us working in the field sometimes use analogies, anecdotes and case-studies to explain KM to others. 

Early conversations often start well but we can all benefit from ways of countering the queries, doubts or even fears raised by those that don't yet "get it".

Two analogies that I like to use at the moment are those of safety and heating:

Safety
Whilst KM may sound like 'common sense' to some, all too often it is not that common.  Indeed, it is NOT the natural, human condition.  Managing anything at all requires deliberate effort, time, money and resources - managing knowledge is no different.  Safety is like this also.

As I blogged recently, we can't work safely without deliberately choosing to do so and we can't manage knowledge with equivalent efforts.

Think of everything that has gone into making factories, offices, shops and building sites safe places in which to work. In order to work safely, organisations have developed policies, committees, guidance, reporting procedures, training, metrics, teams, managers, champions, tools etc. Why?  Because we have learned (all too often the hard way) that the removal of danger requires action on our part.

As with safety, so with KM.  Knowledge won't move around an organisation without significant assistance from KM policies, committees, guidance, reporting procedures, training, metrics, teams, managers, champions, tools etc.

Furthermore, the 'safety team' are NOT the ones that work safely.  Rather, they require, encourage, enable and support the rest of us to do so.

As with safety, so with KM.  The KM team are NOT the ones that manage knowledge.  Rather, they require, encourage, enable and support the rest of us to do so.

Heating
A significant challenge facing KM practitioners as a discipline is the ever-present mistaken belief that technology is the answer, or even that technology somehow is knowledge management.  I think this may be largely down to what I call the 'magpie attraction' of technology.

Some organisations see something new and shiny and say, "We want that!" without properly thinking about the problem to which a so-called 'knowledge management platform' or 'knowledge management system' might be the solution.  Indeed, without the right people, processes and governance, the 'KM = technology = KM' approach achieves absolutely nothing.

To reinforce my point - last week I blogged '6 killer knowledge management quotes' (my most popular post this year, by the way).  Since then, I came across one more on LinkedIn - the ultimate killer KM quote to beat all killer KM quotes. 

From Larry Prusak (ex-IBM, McKinsey etc.) at last week's KM Legal Conference in New York:

"All the technology in the world will not make people collaborate.  Obama is not going to take my call just because I have a telephone and the number for the White House."

Quite.

Now, about that heating analogy.  When we need to heat a house, we don't point to a brand new boiler and say, "We want that!", do we?  We recognise that we need radiators, a thermostat, piping, insulation in the loft, perhaps air conditioning as well. 

As with heating, so with KM.  We don't just need a portal, lessons management system, enterprise search, discussion forums and so on.  We need people to be accountable for their correct use, processes in order to create, update, organise and share the knowledge in them and a system of governance (indeed, a learning culture) that encourages and expects us to do this, and recognises and thanks us for so doing.

Don't waste money on buying only a boiler otherwise your house will stay very cold this winter.

For a conversation about magpies, boilers, safety or indeed, knowledge management, please get in touch direct or via the Knoco website.

Get the right tools for the job here....

For the past year, we at Knoco have been helping an aerospace consortium to create a KM toolkit.

We ran a series of workshops, each covering a separate topic area, the output of which became a chapter for the toolkit.

The chapters are:

• What is Knowledge Management and why do it?
• Retaining Critical Skills
• Building Best Practice
• Learning from Projects
• Enabling Collaboration
• Finding and Structuring Knowledge 

The toolkit has now been published online and is available to download (for free) from the page at this link here.

Whilst the case-studies and context are drawn from the aerospace-industry, many of the issues discussed, and almost of the tools themselves, relate to all sectors.

Please take a look and, if you’d like to have a chat about the toolkit itself or knowledge management in general, do contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

Culture - a self-inflicted wound (or how the BBC and Nokia hurt themselves and how KM can help)

Today, the former judge Dame Janet Smith published her report into the culture and practices of the BBC in light of allegations of abuse by the late Jimmy Savile, during his time as a DJ and TV personality there.

The full report is available here.

Some may recall my writing about this sordid episode before (here and here).

Some key quotes that struck me:

·        “…the management culture in the BBC did not encourage openness in these respects and did not recognise the sense of insecurity which inhibited staff from speaking out.”

·        “An important feature of the culture of the BBC during the period with which we are concerned was the reluctance of staff to complain about bad things which happened to them or to raise concerns about bad things which were happening within the organisation.”

·        “…organisations both large and small find it almost impossible to inculcate a culture where people feel able to report a complaint or raise a concern without fear of adverse consequences for themselves.”

·        “…most staff (other than those who had been in the higher echelons) felt that the management culture was too deferential and that some executives were ‘above the law’.”

·        “…the culture in the BBC and the BBC’s management style did not encourage the reporting of complaints or concerns.”

·        “…fear of reprisal, fear of losing your job, fear of being known as a troublemaker and fear of not being promoted [are the] reasons why complaints might not be made.” 

Now, let’s turn to another well-known organisation – the telecommunications company, Nokia. Formerly the dominant force in the mobile phone market, Nokia sold its mobile devices division to Microsoft in 2013, having been unable to respond to the market challenges presented by Apple and Samsung over the previous 6 years.
This article here, makes a compelling case that it wasn’t Apple or Samsung that damaged Nokia but its very own culture.
Again, some key points:

·        “the company’s top managers had a terrifying reputation, which was widely shared by middle managers….some members of Nokia’s board and top management [were] “extremely temperamental” who regularly shouted at people “at the top of their lungs”….it was thus very difficult to tell them things they didn’t want to hear. Threats of firings or demotions were commonplace.”

·        “Fearing the reactions of top managers, middle managers remained silent or provided optimistic, filtered information.”

·        “…the information did not flow upwards. Top management was directly lied to….There were situations where everybody knew things were going wrong, but we were thinking, “Why tell top managers about this? It won’t make things any better.””

·        “Nokia’s ultimate fall can be put down to internal politics. In short, Nokia people weakened Nokia people and thus made the company increasingly vulnerable to competitive forces. When fear permeated all levels, the lower rungs of the organisation turned inward to protect resources, themselves and their units, giving little away, fearing harm to their personal careers. Top managers failed to motivate the middle managers with their heavy-handed approaches and they were in the dark with what was really going on.”

Two organisations with different purposes and structures but with a common problem – a culture that did not encourage openness and honesty, where only ‘good news’ gets passed on up and whereby senior management don’t have the full picture, forcing them to make decisions based on partial information.
Why?  Because of the culture that they themselves have allowed to take hold. 
But these are extreme cases, right?  That sort of thing doesn’t happen everywhere, does it?
Well, how about we delete ‘sexual abuse’ or ‘touch-screen phone’ and insert, ‘project delays’ or ‘cost over-runs’ or ‘performance issues’ or ‘safety concerns’.  Or any of the other ways in which performance can end up not quite how we had intended.  Are these reported upwards in full?  Or do we only talk about the good stuff? 
In short, many organisations are places where leaders are making decisions whilst not knowing what has really happened and, perhaps more importantly, why.
So what can they do about this?
Good knowledge management requires (amongst other things) the creation of processes to help people talk about how things are going and how they can be improved:

·        After Action Reviews get people in teams to talk openly about how things have gone  and learn from each other;

·        Peer Assists, Knowledge Exchanges and Handovers get different teams to explore issues and come up with solutions that can be embedded into everyday ways working;

·        Retrospects help project teams explore how the project (or stage thereof) went, what has been learned and what can be done differently next time;

·        Knowledge Harvesting Interviews get critical knowledge and information out of the heads of a few experts and available for others to use.

These tools and others can reveal much about what things are really like inside an organisation and, for their potential as learning techniques to be realised, senior management have to show leadership and send out the message that messengers will NOT be shot if they tell the truth.
Leaders must lead by example – which means being brutally honest about their own shortcomings, to send out the message that it’s okay to do so.  Moreover, that to do so is expected and is the essential thing that will lead to better performance – lower costs, higher profits, safer workplaces, motivated employees, better quality products.
For a chat about KM tools or how to create a learning culture, please get in touch or via the Knoco website.

Collaboration in an idyllic, rural setting - how KM frees us up to do more with less

Regular readers of this blog will recall last year’s post about my local village fair.  Key people were away the night beforehand, meaning that those of us left behind had to struggle to work out how to put up the marquees - which poles went where and then into which holes etc.

The end result was that we spent far too long putting them up when we could have been enjoying a drink in the warm evening sunshine.

So how did we get on this year, I hear you ask?

True to my word, I used photos I had taken of the finished products to make rudimentary ‘Knowledge Assets’.  This meant we could quickly identify whether it was the ‘spines’ ‘ribs’ or ‘legs’ of the marquees which required the short, medium or long poles and so could lay everything out with minimal waste.

Moreover, 2 key people (whose absence last year had left us flailing around with little idea what we were doing) were instead available to advise on the best construction sequence to follow.  They could also point out little tips - like how many ties were needed for each length of pole – which helped reduce waste and ensured we were able to put up all the marquees, despite it appearing that we didn’t have enough equipment.

Their assistance was akin to that of a ‘Peer Assist’: an effective way of bringing new project teams up to speed with the tips, good practice and critical know-how that have been hard-won on previous projects.  Of course, what I now need to do is update the Knowledge Asset (i.e. in this instance, a diagram with guidance notes) with these experts' insights, thereby reducing our reliance on them next year and freeing them up for more valuable tasks.

The end result?

Faster, safer, more efficient marquee construction followed by greater, more prolonged and better-deserved beer consumption. 

By some.  Apparently….

Let us help you do more with less through KM tools such as these and more.  Contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

 

 

Communities of practice - nothing new, it would seem!

Frequent readers of this blog will be familiar with my take on military culture and KM.  Both the American and British Armies have invested resources into the knowledge management capabilities that can facilitate organisational learning.  However, military culture often prevents such investment achieving its intended value. 
This is because whilst ‘heroic leadership’ can often be useful, perhaps necessary, for getting scared and weary soldiers to engage in combat, it is too often very hard for such heroes to admit to their own mistakes, thereby sending out the example that euphemisms and cover-ups are okay.  The cumulative effect of this is an exaggeration of achievements and a wilful blindness when it comes to failure – neither of which help successors to learn.
One of the KM capabilities with which armies have been experimenting is the Community of Practice (CoP) – a forum within which functional colleagues can collaborate, seek mutual help as well as sharing ideas and lessons.  The British Army’s dabbling in CoPs has yet to bear the fruit for which many have hoped but these things take time and require support, not least from above.
Interestingly, this article by Dr Robert Foley of Kings College London, shows how the Prussian Army was using Communities of Practice over 200 years ago.  For me, a pertinent quote is, “While the membership was obviously as self-selecting group — only those with the interest and the aptitude applied and were accepted — being part of this society also clearly helped create important professional networks that aided the careers of its members.” 
People need to see that participating in CoPs is worthwhile and, when they do so, they will join up.  That means it’s up to other members to spread the word and to use clear examples of where pulling on the brainpower and know-how of several hundred colleagues helped them get results far beyond what they would have achieved on their own.
For information about Knoco’s CoP services, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

A coffee, a chat and another KM convert...

At the weekend, I was having a cup of coffee with other villagers when I was introduced to a newcomer, John.  Our chat went along these lines:
John: So what do you do?
Rupert: I’m a management consultant.  I work in knowledge management.
John: [A look of bafflement on his face] Err, what’s that?
Rupert: Right…what do you do?
John: I used to be an architect, then I became a teacher and now I’m a campaigner.
Rupert: Okay, so in any of those jobs there would have been knowledge in your head from which others could benefit.  Now, imagine you were knocked down by a bus tomorrow – I’m sure your colleagues would miss you for being you and would be upset etc.  But it probably wouldn’t be too long for them to miss you because you and only you were the one that knew how to do certain things.  Once you’re gone, it’s too late to ask, isn’t it?  Well, knowledge management tries to get the stuff that’s in here [pointing to John’s head] out to those that can use it now, before you walk in front of that bus.
John: Oh goodness, tell me more.  I’m running a really important project at the moment and I’m retiring next year.  What should we be doing to address that?
Rupert: Well, firstly, you need to prioritise the knowledge you have – you can’t share everything and time and resources are limited, so you need to work out in advance what is critical and what is nice-to-have.  So you need what we call a knowledge scan.
John: Okay, can you send me details of that?
Rupert: Of course, next you probably want some sort of knowledge capture process, like an interview where you get to share your knowledge with those that need it, preferably in the room but it’s a good idea to record it as well, on audio or maybe even video for some sections.  The key things is that it’s not just you writing down what you think you know but you need someone there that can represent the end-user, to get you to explain jargon and to keep things as straightforward as possible.
John: Right…can you…?
Rupert: I’ll send you the details….
John: Thanks!
Rupert: Then there’s what you do with the knowledge once it’s out there.  It needs to be tidied up and made presentable, then put into what we call a ‘knowledge asset’, which is basically an online location, such as a wiki or portal that can be accessed by all that need it, as well as edited and updated as things change and the knowledge changes with it.
John: Gosh, I didn’t even know such things existed.  This is really serendipitous, us meeting like this.  Please send me whatever you think we’ll need and then we can discuss.
Rupert: Happy to help.
If you’d like a conversation, with or without the coffee, about how to measure, capture, analyse, protect, share, and in any other way manage your knowledge, please get in touch or visit the Knoco website.

We can't afford to lose you, please stay. Hey wait, where are you going??!

I’ve spent the last few weeks capturing lessons for a large engineering client.  In all we identified 43 high-level, high-impact lessons from a recent project.  My part in the process is over.  What should now happen is that the lessons are assigned to people that can get the ball rolling in terms of implementation – i.e. actually changing things as a result of the recommendations we made.

(A guide to the 10 steps in the life of a lesson starts here.)

The detailed content of the lessons is a matter for the client alone, given the need for confidentiality.  However, I was struck by the many ways in which one can view the issues encountered on projects and, in particular, ‘sticking plasters’ are often proposed over solutions that will endure.
Whilst this tendency was apparent across a range of issues, I’ll focus on those areas where my own discipline can help.
To summarise some of the problems encountered:

·        A number of people with very specialist knowledge and experience left the project during the planning stage;

·        Replacements were very hard to (a) identify and (b) recruit;

·        The project’s execution phase was prolonged, necessitating a handover between 2 teams.  The second team, lacking the experience and continuity of the first, proved less capable and required close supervision.

Initial attempts to propose solutions to these problems resulted in the following suggestions:

·        Pay specialists more money, to make it less likely that they will want to leave (i.e. either a general increase or a specific retention bonus upon completion of the project);

·        Amend contract terms to prevent specialists leaving without lengthy notice periods (Note: military terms of service often require personnel to give 6-12 months’ notice; in theory this enables the identification and posting of a suitably qualified replacement);

·        Overlap the 2 teams to create a prolonged ‘handover’, giving the second one more time to benefit from the experience of the first.

These are all very well but only this last one recognises that, at the heart of this issue, is knowledge and the need to retain it.  Other observations of mine include:

·        Paying specialists more money might end up being very expensive, increasingly so as rivals follow suit in what might well become a self-defeating competition; furthermore, to do so doesn’t address why such individuals are considered so valuable;

·        Amending contract terms also doesn’t do anything to reduce the value of such specialists either and, in an organisation lacking military discipline and ethos, might create the risk of essential people wishing to move on and resentful at not being permitted to do so; it would also create a perverse incentive for people to deny having certain ‘niche’ knowledge and skills;

·        With the costs of some specialist capabilities being what they are, a prolonged handover could be very expensive indeed.

We have looked at the issue of protecting knowledge before, as in this blog post.

Having framed the issue in this way, I then suggested that, as well as its original suggestions, the client should consider the following ideas – ideas that apply to all organisations that run projects:

·        Identify the critical knowledge areas at greatest risk of loss, usually through a Knowledge Scan;

·        Introduce processes to identify and retain such knowledge, through Knowledge Harvesting Interviews and Lessons Capture;

·        Synthesise and share such knowledge, by creating Knowledge Assets;

·        Ensure that such processes are resourced, supported and formalised, through a Knowledge Management plan.

For a conversation about these or any other KM services, please contact me directly or through the Knoco website.

10 things you need to know about project knowledge management (KM) plans

1.      A project team asks, “What knowledge do we need to manage this project?”
2.      Then, “What are the priority knowledge areas?”
3.      Then, crucially, “Where is that knowledge at the moment?”
4.      If it’s been written down, “Can we get access to it?”
5.      If it hasn’t, “Can we speak to the people who have it?”, “Where are they now?”, “Can they help us?”
6.      And then, “Who is responsible and accountable for KM on this project?”
7.      “What processes will we use to manage our knowledge on this project?”
8.      “What IT are we going to use to help us manage our knowledge on this project?”
9.      “How will we learn on this project?”
10.   “Who else can benefit from what we learn?” “Where are they now?” and so on….

For a conversation about KM plans with one of the leading firms of knowledge management consultants, please contact us through the Knoco website.

Life of a lesson #10: post-closure assurance - did we do it right? Any loose ends?

As part of a wider discussion about knowledge management (KM), we’ve recently been looking at the following ten steps in the life of a lesson:

1.       Event takes place – an experience, idea, incident or accident

2.       Analysis and capture – through interview, AAR, workshop, report-writing etc.

3.       Packaging – write-up of lessons

4.       Review for accuracy – editing and improvement by person who identified the lesson

5.       Validation – quality check, ownership assigned and upload into a management system

6.       Review for accountability – periodic checks on progress

7.       Implement recommendations – to avoid/ensure recurrence of bad/good alike

8.       Review for effectiveness – ensure that changes have taken place and/or had desired effect

9.       Closure – lesson status updated but retained in system for reference and to aid analysis

10.    Assurance – as part of risk management, periodic review to ensure closed status remains justified

Last time we examined lesson closure – we’ll now finish this discussion by looking at post-closure assurance.

In any organisation with an embedded lessons learned system, it doesn’t take too long for closed lessons to become so many in number for people to lose track of them.  Therefore it makes sense to develop some form of periodic review, whereby closed lessons are checked to ensure that they have sufficiently robust audit trails (i.e. the comments from those that managed the lesson and implemented its recommendation(s)).  Furthermore, the status of the lesson should also be validated – i.e. do we have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no further work is required?  Does the issue from which the lesson was originally drawn no longer occur?


If lessons are found to have incomplete audit trails or the implemented changes did not address the original issue sufficiently well, the lesson should be re-opened and managed to completion.  If lessons are found to have been closed correctly, then the audit trail should be updated to show that the assurance review has taken place.

That’s it

I began this look at the different stages in the life of a lesson because I come across many people that persist with the view that lessons are things written down from which others might learn if they can be bothered to read them. 

I’ve run meetings for clients where people express frustration that they’re discussing the same issues again and again and that “we never seem to learn from our lessons”.  Without engaging in discussion with those experiencing this angst, there is the risk that lessons as a concept lose credibility and people don’t bother anymore.


I have set out by views on what we should do to and with lessons to ensure that we learn them; you will have your own views.  Let’s hear them…


For more information on lessons, lessons management systems, knowledge management (KM) and organisational learning, please visit the Knoco website.

Life of a lesson #9: we're done when I say we're done, got it?

As part of a wider discussion about knowledge management (KM), we’ve recently been looking at the following ten steps in the life of a lesson:

1.       Event takes place – an experience, idea, incident or accident

2.       Analysis and capture – through interview, AAR, workshop, report-writing etc.

3.       Packaging – write-up of lessons

4.       Review for accuracy – editing and improvement by person who identified the lesson

5.       Validation – quality check, ownership assigned and upload into a management system

6.       Review for accountability – periodic checks on progress

7.       Implement recommendations – to avoid/ensure recurrence of bad/good alike

8.       Review for effectiveness – ensure that changes have taken place and/or had desired effect

9.       Closure – lesson status updated but retained in system for reference and to aid analysis

10.    Assurance – as part of risk management, periodic review to ensure closed status remains justified

 

Last time we looked at how an organisation assures itself that a lesson’s recommendations have been implemented; we’ll now look at lesson closure.

As we have already seen, robust lessons management systems have checks and balances such as periodic reviews that monitor lesson progress and hold lesson owners and other stakeholders to account.  It is during such meetings that lessons recommended for closure are reviewed and, where sufficient evidence justifies the decision, closed.

Early on in its efforts to identify and manage lessons, the British Army decided upon two closure statuses:

• Lessons were closed ‘green’ when recommendations had been implemented and no further action was required;
• Lessons were closed ‘black’ when the lesson was deemed out of date, or that other initiatives had addressed the issue from which the lesson was drawn, or that the recommendations now lacked official endorsement, or that there were neither the resources nor will to implement them.  A recent development in this area has been the continuous management of ‘black’ lessons as risks.

Once lessons have been closed, some organisations ‘remove’ them from their databases or systems but I recommend their retention for 3 reasons:

• Research - when faced with future problems, it can be useful to be able to consult historic lessons (including the commentary and audit trail) to understand how similar issues were tackled in the past;
• Analysis – trends, themes and ‘common issues’ can be detected through data-mining, taxonomy analysis and keyword searches;
• Assurance – any robust system of lessons management should include periodic review of closed lessons to ensure that the decision to close remains valid (we will examine this in greater detail next time).

For more information on lessons, lessons management systems, knowledge management (KM) and organisational learning, please visit the Knoco website.

Life of a lesson #3: Everything that matters and no more....

Recently, we’ve been looking at the following ten steps in the life of a lesson:

1. Event takes place – an experience, idea, incident or accident
2. Analysis and capture – through interview, AAR, workshop, report-writing etc.
3. Packaging – write-up of lessons
4. Review for accuracy – editing and improvement by person who identified the lesson
5. Validation – quality check, ownership assigned and upload into a management system
6. Review for accountability – periodic checks on progress
7. Implement recommendations – to avoid/ensure recurrence of bad/good alike
8. Review for effectiveness – observe changes to ensure they have had desired effect
9. Closure – lesson status updated but retained in system for reference and to aid analysis
10. Assurance – as part of risk management, periodic review to ensure closed status remains justified

Last time we looked at the second step – the processes used to capture lessons.  Now we’ll look at how lessons are written up.

Format

As already discussed, when capturing lessons from people in workshops and interviews, they will often be elicited using the following format:

• What was expected or meant to happen?
• What actually happened?
• How does what happened differ from what was expected?
• What were the root causes or contributory factors?
• What can we learn?  This learning comes in two forms:
  • What should we do next time round, when faced with this issue?
  • What changes should the host organisation make to prevent or ensure recurrence?
• What impact did this issue have?  How much money/time did it cost or save us?

However, regardless of whether this format was used during the capture phase, any material gained now needs to be written into this structure or an equivalent one.  This will take time as well as trial and error.

Enough detail but no more

Lessons capture will often produce more material than you need and writing up lessons requires striking a balance between comprehension and brevity.  Often, an issue will manifest itself in numerous ways but merely repetition of each adds little; instead, you should choose two or three examples that show sufficiently different ways in which the issue affected performance, for good or bad.

Clarity, clarity, clarity

As already mentioned in the last post, an over-riding principle of writing up lessons should be clarity for the end-user – namely, the people with the ability to change things, budgets, processes etc.  For their benefit, explain any acronyms and avoid any project/team/activity-specific jargon.

Value-added, not verbatim

Slavishly reproducing what was said in the interview or workshop is pointless, not least because none of us is as clear, concise or comprehendible as we would like and our musings can all benefit from ruthless editing.  Additionally, the logical flow of a lesson can be enhanced if our thoughts can be re-ordered by someone who sees what we were trying to say, if we’d had the time, training etc.

Boldness not bullshit

Whilst writing up lessons, you might spot a deduction that was all but stated but got missed; or you might think up a recommendation that was not raised in the room but might well solve everything.  If in doubt, include it.  Where judgement is required, be more forceful rather than less and produce a hard-hitting lesson that tells it how it is – it can always be amended in the next step, where we get the lessons reviewed for accuracy by those that identified them.

For more information on lessons, knowledge management (KM) and organisational learning, please visit the Knoco website.