FCW.com - Army lessons learned
FCW.com has an article on Army lessons learned (Greg Slabodkin, July 17, 2006) that focuses on their Army Knowledge Management program, which appears to be successful. The program itself seems to be heavily techno-centric.
As military leaders try to answer questions about failures and mistakes committed during the war in Iraq, few people are paying attention to how warfighters must adapt to succeed — and survive — on the battlefield. That process has often been a matter of trial and error — a luxury that an army at war cannot afford.
I like this article as paired with the overview of the Army's After Action Review as discussed in KMWorld recently. This new article highlights how technology is supporting the baked-in process of learning-as-you-go. Observe something new? Check in with your colleagues - whether that is face-to-face or electronically - and change your approach based on the resulting discussion.
Along with lessons learned, the article talks about implementations that cover discussion groups, and communities of practice. The claim is that these things taken together enable the on-the-ground troops to adapt faster than the top brass.
7 Comment(s)
said:
Dan, Thanks for this excellent additional information. It is always interesting to learn the real story behind what is published.
For anyone interested in learning more about the WKN, the following info is a great article about it...
Kilner, P. (2002). Transforming army learning through communities of practice. Military
Review. 82(3), p 21-27.
I used it in a research project of mine about CoP - it is a great read and does a great job explaining the pros of the program.
said:
Thanks, Curtis. It turns out that Military Review articles are available back that far. The pdf of this article is http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MayJun02/MayJun02/kilner.pdf
Thanks for the reference!
said:
I've been through a few "lessons learned'" excerises which were in based on the Army process but occured in a corporate environment. I came away with a couple of observations.
The best expereince was in a small team setting following a major milestone (software application project). The smaller the team, the closer the working relationships, the easier it was to be candid with each other. The atmosphere of the meeting was important, too. Casual, friendly, but with a facilitator to keep us on track. One interesting problem was that we were also disbanding as a team just then, so a review of 'lessons learned' seemed pointless for us and really didn't seem to help anyone except maybe the project manager. For the software professionals there (I was the 'databass guy'), it was more like 'Oh, yeah, i guess i could have done those stored procedures quicker if only i had...'. Yawn... .
The most negative experience was in a much larger group, a "team of teams". There were about 100 people all invited to a "Lessons Learned" meeting facilitated by the 2nd in command of the project (it had several 'sub-projects' in it, a project made up of small projects). She wasn't a well liked person; she had an aggressive way of communicating with subordinates and the Lessons Learned meeting was a great example: we had about 50 people crowded in a conference room suitable for half that many, and about 50 more on the telecon, mostly listening in. She announced "Ok,people, we're going to have a lessons learned meeting here. The Army uses these techniques and get substantial benefit from them..." then she read a summary of what they were supposed to be like. She wanted people to be 'candid', 'honest', etc. You might imagine how candid people were in a setting like that.
The two experiences were similar in that both managers called it a lessons learned and they were occasioned by a major milestone. However, if every LL in a corporate setting is done in either of these ways, i'd say forget about it. In these cases, the LL seems to have been done more for the PM than for the team and helping them become more attuned to each other's dynamics. In the Army, or a sports team, lessons learned reviews are essential, the life's blood of the profession. However, in the the corporate environment, where there is far less stability in teaming, LL are, i think, far less useful. They're even worse when an LL is made after a major project milestone; they would be far more effective if made after significant teaming exercises --for that, i think, is the whole point of Lessons Learned: getting team members to understand how they work together.
said:
Excellent insights, Duane. I think you are right on when considering the idea of for whom the lessons learned activity is being conducted. In the Army, from what I understand, the lessons learned is for the benefit of everyone in the room as well as those outside of the room. In the way Collison & Parcell (Learning to Fly) talk, it is geared around an entire process within the organization.
The military, on the other hand, has had somewhat of an opposite problem: the culture is, by necessity, one of sharing experiences; the physical dispersion and sheer size makes it hard to effectively (and quickly) share outside your small unit. In fact... Read More
Hi Jack,
Yes indeed, KM is going quite well for the Army! The downside is that for the BCKS program the article has someone trying to, in my opinion, claim personal credit where no credit is due.
My understanding is that the original concept for BCKS was written by Jim Ritter while working at the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), along with others including Dr. Rick Morris, Vicky Calhoun, and Gen. Brown.
But the implementation contract of BCKS is held by Cubic Applications. And the person that I'd say deserves a lot of the credit for BCKS would be Dr. Rick Morris who was the US Army "Chief Knowledge Advisor" and the "Knowledge Architect" of BCKS (he was also the Deputy Director and then the Acting Director of the BCKS Division).
The Army KM program has also been supported by several KM well known folks including Hubert Saint-Onge, Nancy Dixon, and Kent Greenes. Some other key Army KM pieces (in addition to the mentioned CompanyCommand) certainly would include the successes of LTC (Ret) Mike Prevou, Ph.D. & Major Brad Hilton of US Army Leader Network of BCKS, Professional Forums, After Action Reviews (AAR), etc., along with Col. Galvin as the Director of BCKS.
I'd also say that it is fair to say that BCKS has as its actual roots in the Warrior Knowledge Network (WKN) which had major involvement by Dr. Morris. I had some minor involvement in that, and have also most recently provided training to BCKS personnel.