American Management Association 171
www.amanet.org
Sue Newell et al. (2006) claim that “we need to consider problems with
the actual practice” of lessons learned. They claim that the fundamental
problem with traditional codi cation practices—where knowledge is writ-
ten and stored for future use—is the pervasive underlying assumption that
knowledge can be possessed and therefore can be readily transferred to
others in textual form. This view does not take into account the embedded,
situated, and tacit nature of knowledge that manifests itself in practice.
Newell et al. claim that “some knowledge can be possessed independently
of practice . . . while other knowledge is deeply embedded in practice,
making social networks necessary for knowledge sharing” (p. 170).
Ilan Oshri et al. (2006) demonstrate the negative impact of a “reuse”
program designed with the cognitive “knowledge as possession” epis-
temology as its foundational structure. The researchers used an ethno-
graphic case study approach to analyze a newly introduced knowledge-
reuse program in the product development process of an Israeli defense
product manufacturer. They found that management’s e orts to reuse
knowledge from past projects in product development had the unintended
consequence of sti ing the development of expertise. Before the reuse
strategy was introduced, engineers and technicians developed unique,
sometimes redundant designs, which led to “reinventing the wheel.” Yet
the motivation for learning and collaboration was high, and new engi-
neers were developed through mentoring practices and exploratory learn-
ing opportunities.
The authors argue that it was the epistemological assumptions con-
cerning how knowledge could be transferred between projects in the reuse
APPENDIX A:
PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL
“LESSONS-LEARNED” PRACTICES
172 Appendix A
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
strategy that created not only a problem in reusing knowledge across proj-
ects, but also a problem with fostering individual learning. According to
the researchers, the change to a reuse strategy undervalued the situated
nature of learning and knowledge sharing. The policy was for project
teams to share design templates in knowledge- exchange meetings. How-
ever, the participants found it very di cult to transmit and incorporate a
year’s worth of problem solving through codi ed documents. Manage-
ment undervalued the impact of social practices such as dialogue, story-
telling, and problem solving on the e ectiveness of transferring knowl-
edge from project to project (Oshri et al., 2006).
Because of the ine ectiveness of the “knowledge as possession” model
of knowledge exchange, Mike Bresnen et al. (2003) call for a “community-
model” of sharing knowledge that “focuses instead upon the tacit dimen-
sion of knowledge and, in particular, its embeddedness or stickiness within
particular social groupings” and “communities of practice.” The commu-
nity model “focuses on creating and maintaining the conditions required
for the production of knowing. . . . Knowledge is context dependent
since ‘meanings’ are interpreted in reference to a particular paradigm”
(pp. 159–169). This model can be contrasted with the cognitive model,
which focuses on the dissemination, imitation, and exploitation of knowl-
edge, and which is the predominant epistemology underlying traditional
lessons- learned approaches (Newell et al., 2006).
THE ROLE OF SOCIAL PRACTICES
Newell (2004) directly addresses the problem of reinventing the wheel on
projects by selecting four projects from four di erent companies to dem-
onstrate the challenges of cross- project learning. The ndings provide fur-
ther evidence of the limitations of traditional lessons- learned approaches
involving codi cation and storage on databases. When project members
did learn from experiences on other projects, this learning tended to oc-
cur through conversations with those in their personal networks whom
they perceived as being able to help them with their particular problem.
“The main nding was that people either relied on known acquaintances
when seeking help or advice or solved the problems on their own through
a process of trial and error or learning by doing” (p. 17).
Problems with Traditional “Lessons-Learned” Practices 173
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
Rather than investing in more intranet storage and retrieval systems,
claim the authors, “managers need to think strategically about placing
people on projects and organizing events that bring individuals from dif-
ferent projects together—not so much to speci cally share learning and
knowledge but to develop networks that can facilitate such sharing when
the demand is activated by a particular project task” (p. 19).
In a study of the intra- and cross- project learning practices of 19
project- based organizations, Anne Keegan and J. Rodney Turner (2001)
also found that informal networks were “the most important conduit for
transferring learning between individuals and project teams.” Indeed, after
studying cross- project knowledge transfer in 13 unrelated projects across
6 U.K. organizations, Newell et al. (2006) suggest that e ort put into social
practices to facilitate cross- project learning “may be more e ective than,
or at least a necessary complement to, project documents and codi ed
lessons learnt” (p. 180).
Further, in a study of two product development organizations, Marc
Antoni et al. (2005) found that engineers considered “people- centered”
vehicles to be more important than codi cation strategies for transferring
improvement knowledge from project to project. Dialogical vehicles for
transferring knowledge among people were found to include meetings,
workshops with others who were working on similar projects, storytell-
ing by mentors, and rotational sta ng assignments across projects. And
because postproject review practices are centered on the codi cation of
lessons learned through a postproject report, the researchers found that
“a reliance on post- project reviews to share knowledge across projects
is doomed to fail, since this improvement structure is of low priority”
(p. 890).
Further corroboration of these ndings can be found in Andrea Pren-
cipe and Frederick Tell’s (2001) study of the mechanisms that organizations
use to promote cross- project learning. They con rm that “the relationship
between the sender and recipient in the knowledge transfer process is par-
amount [and that] integrative mechanisms, both formal and less formal,
facilitate such learning” (p. 1391). Like Newell et al. (2006), the research-
ers suggest exploring community- based approaches to learning between
projects, focusing on how various “communities of practice contribute
to, or impair, more formal or technology- based initiatives” (Prencipe &
Tell, p. 1391).
174 Appendix A
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
Likewise, in a study of ve cases across project- based organizations in
the United Kingdom, Bresnen et al. (2003) also found that the processes
of knowledge capture, transfer, and learning across projects relied heav-
ily upon “social patterns, practices and processes” among social networks
and “communities of practice.” In communities of practice, the authors
explain, “Knowledge is constructed as individuals share ideas through col-
laborative mechanisms such as narration and joint work” (p. 161).
Karen Ayas (1996) draws on the assumptions of the social nature of
situated, tacit knowledge as well as organizational learning theory to de-
scribe a structural approach to learning within and between projects. She
proposes a network structure model of project organization that was de-
veloped, tested, and re ned through action research with Fokker Aircraft.
She claims that “professional” project management enables organizations
“continually to enhance the underlying knowledge base—their learning
capacity. This implies that all individuals involved in a project are engaged
in a constant process of learning, that they transmit their learning to oth-
ers and the cumulative knowledge acquired is then embodied in the project
organization.” The approach is based on the assumption that “continuous
improvement in project management involves continuous learning.” The
project network structure model utilizes social networks as a means for
making tacit knowledge explicit among team members on large, dispersed
project teams. In subsequent research, Ayas claims that implementation
of this approach, in conjunction with a number of other structured “re-
ective practices” conducted throughout the course of a project, made a
tangible impact on reducing costs and cycle time for product development
projects and encouraged the company to invest more in the development
of its employees (Ayas & Zeniuk, 2001).
PROCESS VS. PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE
The importance of social practices is even more pronounced when orga-
nizations attempt to capture and transfer “process innovations” involving
new work practices, roles, responsibilities, attitudes, or values (Bresnen
et al., 2003).
Process innovations are a form of what Newell et al. (2006) consider
to be “process knowledge.” Process knowledge, in the context of cross-
Problems with Traditional “Lessons-Learned” Practices 175
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
project learning, relates to processes that a team may have deployed to
achieve its goals and includes the reasons why these processes were e ec-
tive or why they were not. Process knowledge can be distinguished from
“product knowledge,” which the authors de ne as “knowledge about what
had actually been achieved in relation to the stated goals or objectives” of
a project (p. 175).
This account of the di erence between product and process knowl-
edge is consistent with Antoni et al. (2005), who describe product knowl-
edge as technical, project- speci c, and often well documented, whereas
process knowledge tends to be more di used in the organization, embed-
ded in routines, and made up of a greater amount of undocumented, tacit
knowledge.
Bresnen et al. (2003) claim that because process knowledge is devel-
oped over the course of a project and is often tacit, intangible, and context-
dependent, it is more di cult to capture and apply. Product knowledge,
on the other hand, can be more easily transferred in explicit forms through
product design templates, diagrams, maps, and other artifacts.
Antoni et al. (2005) found that process knowledge was coded in the
form of templates, checklists, manuals, and guidelines, and also found
that these artifacts were put to use extensively, representing an accumu-
lation of experience in managing product development projects. Project
managers also maintained private diaries that included not only to- do lists,
but notes about project occurrences such as how problem solving was
conducted. Engineers considered these diaries to be very important in car-
rying individual learning from one project to the next.
Project Organization and the Dilemma of Process Knowledge
Traditional project management practice typically involves checkpoints
to review “deliverables” produced by the project team for the purpose of
meeting a project’s speci c objectives (Kerzner, 2006; Newell et al., 2006).
Because project reviews and the completion of project work in general
are highly focused on the production of deliverables, product knowledge,
although potentially less useful, is what is stored in databases and most
often is what is made available for sharing (Newell, 2004). Moreover, An-
toni et al. (2005) nd that product knowledge “enjoys higher status” than
process knowledge among organizational members in their study.
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.