Life of a lesson #7: Implementing recommendations - actually, like, you know, DOING stuff?!

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 – 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 periodic reviews to which lessons should be subjected to ensure accountability for progress is maintained; we’ll now look at the implementation of the recommendations in each lesson.

Whilst the previous stage ensures accountability and makes things happen, this next stage involves those things actually happening.


Readers of this blog will recall that a lesson should answer the following questions:

• 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?

Therefore the lesson will contain analysis that explains why something happened, recommendations on how to prevent or ensure its recurrence and, crucially, the estimated impact associated with the issue from which the lesson was identified.  It is this impact that will help those responsible for the lesson’s management to closure prioritise their workload (i.e. a lesson with the potential to save lives or many millions of dollars warrants greater attention than one that can save a few thousand).


The recommendations in a lesson vary in detail:

• From the specific - ‘The organisation should review, revise and include the attached template in its pre-deployment procedures before the next project/operation etc.’
• To the more vague - ‘The organisation should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the current equipment procurement strategy and be prepared to move towards hiring if the analysis shows this will be more cost-effective.’

The individual, team or department now responsible for a lesson should now:

• Review the lesson and, if necessary, seek clarification from the person that raised it;
• Establish the scope of the work required;
• Identify stakeholders that can either help implement (or will be affected by) the recommendations and add them to the lesson;
• Identify current or future work that can help, hinder or otherwise influence the recommendations;
• Identify resources and make a plan….

Crucially, for each of these steps, comments should be added to the lesson in the form of an audit trail to provide any observer with an update on progress.  And when things change – whether they show progress or indicate a setback, the audit trail should be updated accordingly.

It is this audit trail (and external scrutiny thereof) that helps maintain accountability for lessons as it can be checked in the review meetings already discussed.  Furthermore, even when the recommendations have been implemented, the audit trail provides a potentially valuable reference for future colleagues faced with problems similar to those from which the lesson was identified.  In other words, whilst the solutions are what this form of lessons management seeks, the ‘workings-out’ used to produce such solutions also provide further learning opportunities for others and should therefore be written with this potential benefit in mind.

Once the lesson’s recommendations have been implemented (i.e. budgets changed, resources re-allocated, personnel hired/fired/re-trained and re-roled, equipment procured, processes amended), the lesson can be recommended for closure.  The point at which this happens is the next stage in the life of a lesson, to which we will turn 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 #6: don't try to mess me about - have you done the work or not?!?

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 – 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 5^th step - validation, assignment of ownership and upload into a management system.  We’ll now look at the periodic reviews to which lessons should be subjected to ensure accountability for progress is maintained.
 
We’ve already said that lessons should be assigned to an individual, team or department with the ability to implement the recommendations contained therein (i.e. “the levers”, the budget, the ability to hire and fire etc.).
 
In many respects, lessons are no different to any other kind of work, in that there needs to be some way of monitoring progress and ensuring that things are not simply allowed to drift.  Just as organisations review projects, safety, sales, budgets etc, so they should review their lessons.
 
There are several ways this can be done but the simplest is some form of meeting, held every few weeks or months.
 
Such a meeting should be chaired by an individual responsible for lessons across the whole organisation (i.e. relatively senior, perhaps even the overall boss) and attended by representatives of the departments to whom lessons have been assigned for resolution.
 
Advance notice of the meeting should include an agenda setting out which lessons will be discussed, enabling all to ensure that lesson audit trails (i.e. commentary setting out the status of the lesson and what has been done so far to implement its recommendations) are updated.
 
An example of such an agenda is below:

• Departmental updates
• Discussion of high impact lessons
• Discussion of lessons recommended for transfer or elevation
• Discussion of lessons recommended for closure (recommendations implemented)
• Discussion of lessons recommended for closure (lesson rejected)
• Any other business

 As the agenda implies, these meetings ensure that lessons do not lie idle, that people’s ‘feet are held to the fire’, that lessons are assigned and re-assigned correctly and are the only authority under which lessons can be closed, once it has been demonstrated that recommendations have been implemented and had the desired effect.
 
As should now be obvious, this stage in a lesson’s life is perhaps the most important because:

• Without proper accountability and a regular forum within which to examine progress, things remain as they are or get worse;
• Without senior buy-in and participation in meetings such as this, departments downgrade their attendance or skip the meetings altogether;
• Without the opportunity to discuss suggested solutions and seek assistance from others, lesson owners are left feeling powerless and unable to make progress.

Next time, we’ll look at the recommendations contained in lessons and how they are implemented.


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

Do you want to know why so many organisations don't learn? I'll tell you....

Next month I'll be running a masterclass for ARK - details of which can be found on their site here.
The aim of the class is to look at organizational learning (OL) and knowledge management (KM) from cultural and behavioural perspectives. Through a series of presentations, discussions, and exercises, I will help participants will explore:

• Challenges, risks, and behaviours that inhibit OL and KM
• Opportunities, enablers, and behaviours that encourage OL and KM
• The importance of leadership and its impact on learning, for good or bad
• Examples and absences of learning from recent history and current affairs

I'll be using examples from my time in the British Army, the City, and now as a KM consultant to explore why some organizations – and people – find it so hard to learn.

After taking part in this masterclass, participants will:

• Be able to identify, create, and make the most of learning opportunities
• Identify, avoid, and manage some of the risks that limit learning
• Have an awareness of how their own behaviour helps or hinders learning
• Have several new tips and approaches for their ‘learning toolkit’
• Have some recommended reading for further study

The masterclass is aimed at OL and KM practitioners from all sectors, novices and experts alike. If you want to move beyond ‘lessons learned’ and gain insight into how to facilitate improved performance, this is for you!



For more information about knowledge management and organisational learning, please visit the Knoco website.

The top 5 posts this week

Looks like that post about the Army was a touch popular... Entry	Page views
Learning lessons - the British Army experience, fo... 9 Apr 2014	666
Leaders, show the way - be yourself 10 Apr 2014	53
Life of a lesson #5: Is this is for us? It is? The... 8 Apr 2014	35
How dare you, my Lord, how dare you! Hillsborough... 2 Apr 2014, 1 comment	23
Life of a lesson #4: "Cheeky bugger, I never said ... 31 Mar 2014	16

Leaders, show the way - be yourself

There are many definitions of leadership but let’s define it as “a directive and facilitating function that enables teams to perform better (or worse) than they would on their own”.  In other words, whilst we would hope that leaders are a force for good, they are sometimes the opposite.

Leadership is provided by giving both explicit and implicit direction to teams on what needs to be achieved and why.  Explicit direction is given in the content of verbal or written instructions.  Implicit direction (or what is often called, “leadership by example”) is found in the way instructions are given or, indeed, the behaviour of the leader in question.  When these two modes are aligned, the direction is clear; when they are in conflict with one another, it is not. 

Leaders can, through the priorities they demonstrate in their day-to-day lives, exert great influence over those that report to them.  If ‘the boss’ thinks something is important, then it becomes important for everyone else as well.  By contrast, if they repeatedly miss safety meetings, then an inference is drawn that safety doesn’t matter.

In other words, leaders have a genuine responsibility when it comes to getting their organisations to learn from experience and improve performance.  If they seriously wish to encourage self-criticism and honesty from those that they lead (in order to enable learning), then they have to demonstrate their own willingness to admit mistakes.  For some this may be difficult for fear of appearing vulnerable or weak.  In my experience, such fears are unfounded.

In 2011, whilst working for the British Army’s Lessons Exploitation Centre (about which, more is available here), I attended a post-operational debrief during which one Commanding Officer spoke of the arrogance and misconceived ideas with which he had deployed.  One particular operation that he had planned, involving 3 sub-units, was undone “by 2 blokes with a moped and a mobile phone”, forcing him to re-visit his assumptions about his environment and his role within it.  This taught him much and his modesty enabled those of us in the audience to benefit as well.  No-one thought any worse of him for this; rather, we respected him all the more for it.

By contrast, another officer’s briefing offered up his “enduring tactical imperatives” of which the final one was, “Be a learning and adaptive organisation.” When asked, “What mistakes did you make on your tour, if any, and what did you learn from them?” his response was, “Hmm...I didn’t come prepared for that one…. we always talk about the good points, don’t we? Can I come back to you? Right, next question…”
As well as demonstrating humility and honesty, leaders can promote organisational learning and good knowledge management by actively listening to their staff and fostering an environment where people feel comfortable to question the status quo.  This may be difficult for some since it enabled them to rise to their current position.  Nevertheless, failing to consider new ideas or justifying things because “that’s they they’ve always been done” means they are unlikely to tap their organisation’s true potential. 

More material on the kind of behaviour that helps learning is available in the Organisational Learning Culture handout from the downloads section of the Knoco website, here.

For a conversation about leadership and its role in knowledge management, please contact me direct or visit the Knoco website.

Learning lessons - the British Army experience, for good or bad

We read last week that the MOD is trying to prevent publication of a book that it commissioned, ‘An Intimate War’ by Dr Mike Martin, allegedly because it contains criticisms of the way the British Army conducted operations in Afghanistan.  We have been here before, with Toby Harnden’s excellent book, ‘Dead Men Risen’, the entire first print run of which the MOD had to buy and destroy because it allegedly contained details that might have compromised operational security.

Twitter and other social media have today contained much commentary regarding the Army’s failure to accept criticism which, in turn, impedes its ability to learn lessons.

I declare an interest here because, for 3 years, I worked as a lessons analyst for the British Army’s Lessons Exploitation Centre (LXC) in Warminster, Wiltshire.

The British Army has put much effort, time and resources into improving its learning capabilities but it has much more to do, as does any organisation that seeks to learn.  My article at this link here sets out how the Army developed learning capabilities but also argues, strongly, that cultural factors remain that, unless addressed, will continue to inhibit its opportunity to improve performance.  It imparts no classified information but covers the following:

• The expansion of the British Army’s KM and OL analytical capacity from 2009 onwards;
• The development of Mission Exploitation Symposia to socialise hard-won knowledge;
• The use of lessons as part of risk management;
• The endorsement of the ‘lessons learned’ approach by the Army Inspectorate;
• Small signs of progress that learning is actually taking place;

 

The article then makes suggestions on how the Army can develop a learning culture:

• Learning about learning – through study of leading KM and OL theorists and practitioners;
• Development of a lessons cadre – making KM and OL a career-stream of choice;
• Moving LXC up the chain of command, reporting to the very top;
• Revisions of performance appraisals to encourage and embed the behaviour that supports learning;
• A move towards open dialogue, not mere adversarial discussion;
• Good, old-fashioned leadership by example through self-criticism and humility;
• A move from reflexive defensiveness, currently hidden behind ‘security’ concerns;
• Recognition that rank and cap-badge inhibit knowledge-transfer and learning;
• Embracing genuine mission command – and learning by doing;
• Moving towards a just culture, encouraging honesty and intelligent accountability;
• Learning from others – armies, charities, companies, the world

 

The article then concludes by quoting Major Giles Harris DSO, who commanded the Prince of Wales’s Company of the Welsh Guards on their bloody tour of Afghanistan in 2009,

“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.”[i]

Such honesty.  We need more of it.
For more information on lessons, learning cultures, knowledge management and organisational learning, please visit the Knoco website.

 

---

[i] Toby Harnden, ‘Dead Men Risen’ p. 558.

Life of a lesson #5: Is this is for us? It is? Then let's get on with 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 – 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 4^th step - how lessons are reviewed for accuracy and improved by those who identified them.  We’ll now look at validation, assignment of ownership and upload into a management system.

Validation – is this really a lesson for us?

Up to this point, our lesson has effectively stayed between those that identified it and the person who has written it up. Validation ensures that the organisation with the power to implement the lesson’s recommendations is satisfied that these are reasonable, sensible, relevant requests.

This does not mean that any action is taken to begin implementing the lesson; it is merely an opportunity for the host organisation (e.g. company, Army, hospital, charity, police force etc.) to agree that this is a lesson for its consideration.  Where this agreement is lacking, the lesson can be transferred (i.e. up, down or sideways) to those better placed to manage it.

It’s worth checking the lesson for clarity, brevity, punctuation and grammar at this stage also – yes, it may have been written and reviewed by others already but they may have been on an oil or gas platform off-shore, in a forward-operating base in a hot, dusty theatre of war or in a busy factory, with hot, noisy production going on around them.  To pass up the opportunity to improve their offerings in relative peace and quiet is to do them a disservice, frankly.

Metadata – what will help us find this lesson in the future?

Metadata should be added to the lesson at this point.  This is a topic to which we shall return in the future but, for now, suffice to say that we simply add information to the lesson to help us retrieve it in the future.  This can include:

• Date and location of event from which lesson has been identified;
• Key-words (e.g. ‘tags’, like those used at the foot of articles on news websites);
• Taxonomy codes (e.g. classification of the issue and/or solution, perhaps through the use of numbers (e.g. 7.3.3);
• Any categories already in use (i.e. functions, business areas, budgets etc.).

Assigning ownership – who can make things happen?

The lesson must now be allocated to someone, somewhere to see it through to implementation and closure.  This is arguably the most important element of any lessons management system, not least because its absence means that nothing happens to the lesson and it merely takes up storage space in an online folder or system.  Assigning ownership requires governance arrangements to be in place, as well as a policy document setting out how lessons are to be allocated, how managed and by whom.

We’ll return to the areas of policy and governance in the future but, for now, we will just note that a lesson should be assigned to an individual, team or department who has ability to implement the recommendations contained therein (i.e. “the levers”, the budget, the ability to hire and fire etc.).  Also, vitally, that individual, team or department must acknowledge that the responsibility lies with them – they may not like it but, for now, they simply agree that the lesson is on their ‘to-do list’ until they have implemented it, transferred it elsewhere or recommended no further action be taken (for reasons which, again, we will examine another time).

Uploading the lesson

Obviously, lessons management systems vary from simple spreadsheet tools (e.g. such as Microsoft Excel) to sophisticated, purpose-built software packages (e.g. like the Lessons Management Hub (LMH) from www.lessonlearner.com).

Whichever method is being used, a lesson should be allocated a unique reference number, remain viewable by all (exceptions to this should be rare indeed) and stay in the system until its recommendations have been implemented (or rejected, about which, more later).


Once uploaded, work can and must begin to implement the changes recommended in the lesson.  We can maintain momentum by periodically reviewing progress and we will look at such reviews next time.

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

How dare you, my Lord, how dare you! Hillsborough and humbug

When I run lessons capture meetings for clients, my opening remarks usually include this phrase, “If we are to learn from what happened, we need to know…what...happened.  Not what you’d like to pretend happened, so as to put yourself in the best light and perhaps gain that bonus or that promotion.  Not what you’d like to claim happened so as avoid criticism, or minimise embarrassment, or even the sack. But simply this – what happened.  Failing to be honest here means that our understanding of the past will be based on false premises, which means the recommendations we make may well be the wrong ones.  So please, be brave, be bold and tell it how it is.”

What a shame it is that Lord Justice Goldring (the coroner presiding over the current inquest being held to examine the causes of death of the 96 fans of Liverpool Football Club who died at Hillsborough in 1989) had not said something similar to the jurors yesterday, as he set out how the inquest will be conducted.


As reported on the BBC website, where he could have indicated independence of thought and a desire for the truth, instead he has limited, severely, the terms of reference and scope of inquiry.  This is because he asked the jury to consider the "conduct of the fans, or some of them, excluding those who died".


He went on to say, "I phrase it in that way because I don't believe anyone will suggest that the conduct of those who died in any way contributed to their deaths."


Perhaps he is motivated by a desire to assuage the fears of the families of those that died and, given the outrageous efforts to conceal the truth by some policemen (through the 'editing' of statements), the desire to seek some form of balance is understandable.


Understandable but completely wrong.


What will happen if DNA evidence is found to link the injuries suffered by one victim to the fists, fingernails or teeth of another?  What if such evidence is combined with extremely high blood-alcohol readings? Are the jury not to assign any degree of responsibility on the victims, even in  those circumstances?


I know some people, perhaps many, will disagree with me on this but I raise these concerns to alert other to the dangers of deliberate attempts to conceal or limit the truth.  No matter what the motivation, however ‘understandable’, efforts to deflect examination must at the very least be revealed for what they are and should be resisted by all of us that care about learning from experience.


If we are to learn from what happened we need to know…what…happened.