Introduction 5
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
“lessons learned” that get stored in databases and don’t get used. Instead,
project teams stop and re ect at regular intervals while the project is in
ight so that they can de ne improvements and tangible action items that
can be actively applied during the next phase. The result is learning and
performance improvement as the project progresses, reducing the risk of
project failure, improving team e ectiveness, and providing real- time feed-
back and development opportunities for project members.
In Level 2 of the multi- level learning framework (the cross- project
improvement level), project managers are enlisted, perhaps by a project
or program management o ce, to improve processes that span multiple
projects and programs. At this level, project managers team up and tackle
speci c cross- project problems and opportunities that, when adequately
addressed, will improve delivery e ectiveness across the many projects
in the portfolio, creating a “multiplier” e ect. Process improvement is
at the core of this approach, in which project managers actively re ect
on mission- critical organizational processes, develop speci c strategies
for improving these processes, and test and validate these strategies as
projects progress in order to implement improvements that break down
bureaucracy, reduce waste, eliminate delays, and unlock innovation. This
kind of improvement process is much more powerful and practical than
simply hosting knowledge- sharing sessions or reporting lessons learned
among project managers. The result is real improvement across projects
and buy- in from those who need to implement the change. Engaging proj-
ect managers to improve cross- project processes can reduce costs, improve
productivity, and cut down on the time required to deliver results.
At Level 3 of the multi- level learning framework, senior managers and
sponsors play a pivotal role. Their decisions about strategy and project
selection have wide- ranging implications for the organization. Therefore,
they themselves also engage in periodic re ection on the organization’s
overall project portfolio and its ability to achieve the organization’s strat-
egy. Rather than focusing on a speci c project, the strategy retrospective
is focused on broader programs and strategies, of which projects are only
a part. Questions include: Are the projects in the pipeline enabling the or-
ganization to achieve its intended strategy? What adjustments need to be
made to ensure that we achieve our intended results? Which projects need
to be initiated, cancelled, or repurposed? What actions need to be taken,
and at which levels of the organization?