Why Your Organization Doesn’t Learn From Its Lessons Learned

5. August 2019
Kategorien
Newsletter abonnieren

Lessons Learned or Lessons Learnt are experiences distilled from a project that should be actively taken into account in future projects.

There are several definitions of the concept. The one used by the NASA is as follows: “A lesson learned is knowledge or understanding gained by experience. The experience may be positive, as in a successful test or mission, or negative, as in a mishap or failure. A lesson must be significant in that it has a real or assumed impact on operations; valid in that is factually and technically correct; and applicable in that it identifies a specific design, process, or decision that reduces or eliminates the potential for failures and mishaps, or reinforces a positive result.

Personally I like the following definition: “Generalizations based on evaluation experiences with projects, programs, or policies that abstract from the specific circumstances to broader situations. Frequently, lessons highlight strengths or weaknesses in preparation, design, and implementation that affect performance, outcome, and impact.

I think most organizations feel that project sponsors, managers, and teams can reduce project costs and duration by learning from past projects, by implementing past successes, and by avoiding past failures.

But at the same time, many organizations have no standards for collecting, analyzing, storing, disseminating, and reusing Lessons Learned. Consequently, they are losing valuable knowledge gained during projects and between projects.

They seem to be able to learn the little lessons, like improving small aspects of projects, but the big lessons seem to be relearned time and time again. Here is why:

> Projects are not making sufficient time for a Lessons Learned session.

> Key people (like the sponsor or main stakeholders) are not available for a Lessons Learned session.

> Organizations have an ineffective lessons capture process. Lesson learning crucially needs a standard lessons reporting format and structure, an effective approach to root cause analysis, a focus on lesson quality, openness and honesty, and a validation process.

> Project teams do not see the benefit of a Lessons Learned session. Lessons Learned captured on a project seldom benefit that project. They benefit future projects. Often, the project sponsor and manager see capturing Lessons Learned as simply another chore that provides his or her project with little value, especially if the Lessons Learned procedure is complex, takes a fair amount of resources and time to implement, and management has not provided adequate resources to perform the work. The solution here is to have a simple procedure, ensure projects have the resources and time to implement the procedure, and hold project managers accountable for following the procedure.

> An ineffective lessons dissemination process. The value of even well-crafted reports is often undermined because they are not distributed effectively. Most dissemination is informal, and as a result development and adoption of new practices is haphazard. Generally, project teams must actively seek reports in order to obtain them. There is no trusted, accessible repository that provides Lessons Learned information to project teams company-wide, although some departments do have lessons repositories.

> Lack of motivation to fix the issues. There is a reluctance to make big fixes if it’s not what you are being rewarded for, a reluctance to learn from other parts of the organization, and difficulties in deciding which actions are valid.

> A lack of dedicated resources. Commitment to learning is wasted if resources are not available to support the process. Unfortunately, funds available to sustain corrective action, training, and exercise programs are even leaner than those available for staff and equipment. Lesson-learning and lesson management need to be resourced. Roles are needed to support the process, such as those seen in the US Army and the RCAF, or in Shell. Under-resourcing lesson-learning is a major reason why the process so often fails.

> A lack of leadership involvement in and commitment to the learning process. This is the most critical barrier. An effective Lessons Learned process means having a disciplined procedure that people are held accountable to follow. It means encouraging openness about making mistakes or errors in judgment. It often means cultural or organizational change, which does not come easily in most organizations. It means leading by example. If management is unwilling to learn from their mistakes, it is unlikely that the rest of the organization will be willing to admit to mistakes either. In fact, management must reward people for being open and admitting to making mistakes, bad decisions, judgment errors, etc. This, of course, flies in the face of many corporate cultures.

> Process change versus accountability. When something goes wrong on a project, there is someone accountable. One of the biggest problems in implementing an effective Lessons Learned process is to separate the “accountability” issue from the “process” issue. Accountability is important, but is something to be dealt with by management. Lessons Learned must deal with the process deficiency that caused the problem (e.g., inadequate procedure, too much of a rush, inadequate training, poor communications, etc.). Once a Lessons Learned process focuses on blame or finger-pointing, the process will soon fade into oblivion.

> Not using Lessons Learned in the initiation and planning phases of new projects. You should ensure that projects in these stages incorporate Lessons Learned from prior projects by making a Lessons Learned session mandatory.

Closing Thoughts

Instead of leaning the little lessons, like improving small aspects of projects, I think it would be very valuable to learn the big lessons, instead of relearning them time and time again by making the same mistakes on similar projects.

There are many reasons why lesson learning is not working for most organizations. Perhaps the underlying causes include organizations treating lesson learning as a system, rather than as a product (i.e., a report with documented lessons), and a failure to treat lesson learning with the urgency and importance that it deserves.

In a nutshell: If learning lessons is important (and it usually is), then the process needs proper attention, not lip service.

Tags

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #11 – Risk Mitigation vs. Innovation

7. Mai 2026

Professional services firms are designed to minimize risk. Their business model depends on trust, reputation, and consistency. Clients rely on them for assurance, judgment, and reliability, which means failure is not just a delivery issue, but a firm-level risk. A single incident can have disproportionate consequences, whether through litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational damage. That

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #10 – Client Intimacy vs. Platform Standardization

28. April 2026

Professional services firms win through relationships. The closer they are to the client, the more value they create. Understanding the client’s context, adapting to their needs, shaping solutions around specific situations rather than applying generic ones. That is where trust is built, where differentiation happens, and where premium pricing becomes possible. Standardization moves in the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #8 – Short-Term Revenue vs. Long-Term Capability

23. April 2026

Professional services firms are built around revenue. Revenue is visible, measurable, and immediate. It drives partner compensation, signals performance, and anchors decision-making across the firm. Every client won, every project sold, every hour billed translates directly into current-year outcomes. Capability building works differently. It requires investment upfront, often without immediate return, and pays off over

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #7 – Partner Autonomy vs. Firm-Level Strategy

18. April 2026

One of the defining features of professional services firms is partner autonomy. Partners are expected to build and run their own business. They originate clients, grow revenue, manage teams, and are rewarded based on the performance of what they directly control. This creates strong ownership, high accountability, and a culture where individual success is tightly

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #6 – Service Lines vs. Firm

16. April 2026

One of the most persistent illusions in professional services is the idea of “one firm.” From the outside, large firms present themselves as unified organizations. One brand, one client proposition, one set of capabilities delivered across audit, tax, advisory, and deals. The expectation is clear: if the firm is integrated in the market, it should

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #5 – Global Standardization vs. Local Economics

12. April 2026

One of the least discussed challenges in large transformation programs is the illusion of standardization. From the outside, global professional services firms look highly uniform. One brand, one set of services, one methodology, delivered across countries in a way that suggests consistency and control. Audit, tax, consulting, deals all appear to operate within the same

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #4 – Accountability vs. Alignment

1. April 2026

In large transformation programs, accountability is rarely missing. It is distributed. It sits with executive sponsors, steering committees, transformation offices, service line leaders, and partner groups, each with a defined role and a legitimate claim to involvement. On paper, this creates alignment. In practice, it often removes ownership, because when accountability is spread across too

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #3 – Long-Term Investment vs. Short-Term Management

27. März 2026

One of the most underestimated constraints in professional services transformation is not technology, capability, or even funding. It is time. Real transformation takes longer than most firms are structurally able to tolerate. Core systems such as ERP platforms, data architectures, AI capabilities, or global workflow solutions are not incremental improvements. They are foundational changes. They

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #2 – Internal vs. Client Execution

26. März 2026

One of the most persistent, and least openly discussed, tensions in professional services firms lies in how they execute their own transformations. It is a tension that does not reveal itself in strategy decks or partner presentations, but in the day-to-day reality of large internal programs that quietly struggle to deliver. At first glance, the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #1 – Technology Alliances vs. Internal Fit

20. März 2026

This article is part of a series exploring the tensions at the core of the Professional Services Transformation Paradox. The paradox itself is straightforward, yet deeply consequential. Firms that excel at transforming their clients often struggle to transform themselves. Not because they lack capability, but because their own structures, incentives, and operating models create resistance

Weiterlesen
Next