Time to learn differently

Why do we not learn the lessons from our "lessons learned" exercises?

Although "lessons learned" have always existed, our capacity to improve with these lessons have not been matched by the institutionalisation of "lessons learned" as a quasi-genre.

Despite the vast resources they sometimes demand - and the undoubted integrity of those who deliver them - "lessons learned" often fail to produce the insights that move the dial because of faults in-built in the very genre. 

"Lessons learned" tend to focus on practices and procedures, and not deal with individuals and their choices; they treat personnel as interchangeable parts in a large, complicated system. 

In truth, the most important determinants of outcomes are often the strengths and weakness of those involved, combined with their decision-making and leadership qualities. We need to invest in diverse talents and build resilience in our teams.

Instead, "lessons learned" exist in a bureaucratic setting in which unpleasant comparisons are avoided and institutional biases protected. Devoid of discussion and debate, they do not seek to yield multiple interpretations or stimulate further enquiry. 

Instead we plough on, driven to get on with the next job and certain to repeat some mistakes because we skirt problems that lack an obvious solution. We focus on procedural issues rather than tackle the big, fundamental questions first. 

We can only truly learn the lessons when we are all personally & collectively responsible for the ultimate outcomes. Learning is personal and behavioural, and cannot be mechanised.