Progressive Lessons Learned

Red sneakers climbing bright blue metal stairs. The setting is industrial with a focus on vibrant colors and movement.

Background

One issue concerning us as managers is how to ensure a structured and methodical process for extracting lessons learned.

The first hurdle we've already overcome is convincing the organization that extracting lessons learned is not just a good idea, but one we want to implement in practice. However, such a decision is typically met with concerns, even significant ones: fear that an investigation will turn into blame; fear of an advanced and in-depth academic process that has long disconnected from practicality; fear of distorting the past based on present knowledge, and more.

Much has been said about creating a supportive organizational atmosphere (see review on "Complementary Cultural Activity in Lessons Learned"). Much has also been said about not necessarily adhering to the classic investigation method familiar to us (facts; findings; conclusions; lessons learned; tasks), but rather adopting additional methods according to the nature of the activity, its scope, and frequency.

In fact, many factors influence the method an organization chooses to adopt. One of the central factors is the input invested in the process itself, especially regarding time resources.

In this review, we wish to propose an additional method as part of the toolkit available to us in the lessons learned creation stage.

This method may be suitable for some organizations seeking to extract lessons, where the other methods we've presented in the past (AAR, integrated processes, peer learning, etc.) are less suitable for their character and needs; a method that will reduce the concerns we face, as its basis is understanding the perspective of the partners and developing lessons from this perspective.

First, let's name the method:

Progressive Extraction

Why this name?

Because it unfolds in several rounds, there are lessons at each stage, like in an onion, and gradually, we reach true and quality lessons.

The Method

How does the extraction process work?

The lessons learned process is conducted in two meetings. Each meeting can last about an hour and a half, but the separation is important.

We will ask people in advance to come prepared for these meetings, having already thought about the lessons.

Seemingly, this violates a basic principle in the process. Still, the assumption is that the invitees will arrive with initial lessons in any case since this meeting is not the first time the subject has been discussed.

The goal is to utilize the preliminary thinking as an advantage and start the discussion from a higher starting point.

The Progressive Extraction method takes this into account.

In the first meeting, each participant is asked to present the lessons that seem important to them.

The other people in the meeting are asked not to comment or disagree but to listen and, if necessary, raise specific clarification questions. In their turn, each participant can connect to a previous lesson. In such a case, the participants will agree on the expanded wording of the lesson.

As an essential part of this method, the collected lessons are documented in "real time" and displayed throughout the discussion to all participants (whether using a computer connected to a projector or through a board). This enables the creation of agreements and maximum participation of all partners throughout the meeting (otherwise, it is very difficult to listen and certainly to comment or connect to previous lessons).

At the end of the round, a short additional round can be held for comments and additions of lessons that were omitted in the first round, as it is natural and logical that the discussion and review of the presented lessons will raise additional lessons that we had not thought of in advance.

At the end of this stage, we have an initial list of lessons.

From experience, despite the "lessons" title at the top of the list, only some meet the definition of "lessons." In practice, most include tasks, thoughts, and reflections, which can even be classified as findings or conclusions (on this matter, it is recommended to review a previous review: Between a Lesson and a Task).

However, this stage is still of great importance.

Its importance is twofold: First, all partners unload what was important for them to say before everyone, so the next meeting will be more matter-of-fact and less emotional.

Second, managing the meeting facilitates the creation of an agreement (at least partial) among the participants.

After this meeting, a second meeting should be held based on the agreements formed in the first meeting. The second meeting is recommended to be held another day or, at the latest, after a week.

As mentioned, this meeting has a substantive basis, thanks to what was said, but no less, thanks to the time that has passed since it was said. This meeting also takes place in several rounds:

In the first round, each partner is asked to choose one lesson, the most central one, from all the lessons formulated in the previous meeting and now presented to all. At this stage, the facilitator intervenes and assists, while recording the lesson, in properly formulating it as a lesson (not a finding, not a conclusion, and not even a task). The facilitator also asks about the possibility of applying it to additional cases, how practical and applicable it is, and more. The requirement to limit to one lesson forces the partners to prioritize and focus on the main point. The partners are asked to generate agreement on the lesson. If there is no agreement, there is a suggestion to improve the wording, improve the focus (in what circumstances the lesson is correct), or broader discussion to form agreement.

Meanwhile, an additional heading is recorded, "Facts and Findings" (intentionally without separating them), where the partner can suggest facts and findings that support the proposed lesson. Generally, the lesson's original wording will be recorded in this line. The round is completed after all partners have proposed what was important for them to propose as lessons.

It is important to note that the requirement to choose a single lesson stems from the need to focus and conduct the discussion in a substantive and focused manner. Flexibility and discretion can be shown when implementing this requirement. Still, it is important to prevent a situation where one participant becomes too dominant and another cannot express themselves.

Each partner is asked to propose additional significant lessons in the second round. The process is similar to that of the first round. Still, generally, it is even more matter-of-fact and in a better atmosphere after the important lessons have already been recorded and are of high quality.

In the final round, the original list of lessons is reviewed to examine whether something significant was not mentioned.

The list of lessons now displayed is agreed upon, of high quality, and gives a sense of satisfaction with the process.

Now, if necessary, tasks can be derived to implement these lessons, and at the same time, they can be transferred for documentation in the organizational lessons and insights repository.

Therefore, this method offers a new approach to the lesson creation stage, with its main advantage being its gradual nature. In practice, it allows for the evolutionary development of lessons, as these are first created in people's minds, then undergo a recording process, followed by discussion and agreement, and finally formulation and final recording.

What gradual progression did we see in this method?

Gradual progression in creating lessons (preliminary stage before the meeting, first stage in creating the raw list, completion round, prioritizing lessons, combining and extracting them); gradual progression in creating agreement, while transitioning from an emotional and charged process to a substantive one; and gradual progression in moving from raw lessons to quality lessons.

The uniqueness of this method is that it allows for the avoidance of the methodological process of creating lessons, which is sometimes perceived as Sisyphean, which is not simple to implement and creates resistance among the participants.

Additionally, the method connects to people and their nature, instead of having people connect to the method. It is therefore possible to shorten the method (fewer rounds, for example) to connect in the most appropriate way to the group and context.

In addition to the quality of the lessons, this method's primary benefit is the cooperation of the participants and the agreement around the lessons.

We would be happy to hear your feedback regarding your experience with this method. Thank you very much.