The purpose of this chapter is to establish an ideal type model of best practice in lessons learned (LL). As outlined in the introduction, this model of best practice will not encompass all possible features of a lessons process (Cahnman 1965; Weber, 1922). Rather, it attempts to map the fundamental organisational activities and processes which should underpin effective LL. The chapter begins by introducing the concept of organisational learning. It proceeds by using a sub-field of organisational learning â dynamic organisational capabilities â to establish the central organisational processes and activities which foster learning at the individual, group and organisational levels.
In doing so, the chapter also examines guidance on LL best practice contained in the third edition of the NATO LL Handbook, released by the Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre (JALLC) in February 2016. The JALLC opened in 2002 and attained full operational capability in 2006. It forms NATOâs main body for the joint analysis of operations, exercises, training and experiments and the NATO-wide dissemination of joint lessons. The JALLC is also tasked with assisting NATO states with developing their LL capabilities through working groups, seminars and the annual NATO LL Conference that brings together representatives from national LL processes to discuss LL best practice. The JALLCâs LL Handbook attempts to establish the key processes and activities which permit military organisations to capture, analyse and share lessons (NATO LL Handbook 2016, 8). The chapter incorporates the key insights of the Handbook and identifies a number of important features of effective LL which do not receive attention in the document.
Organisational learning and knowledge management
The concept of organisational learning was first coined by Cyert and March (1963, 84), who recognised the importance of rules and procedures in facilitating adaptation at the individual and group levels and in ensuring that successful practices are adopted more widely within an organisation (Cyert and March, 1963, 100). Accordingly, Thomas and Allen (2006, 123) define organisational learning as âthe intentional use of learning processes to continually transform the organisationâ (Thomas and Allen, 2006: 123). However, this definition fails to capture the multidimensional nature of organisational learning, which, as Holmqvist (2003, 98) notes, is a process that is âexperiential, cognitive and behavioural, social, and organizedâ. Hence organisational learning is best defined âas the social production of organizational rules based on experience that leads to a changed organizational behaviourâ (Holmqvist 2003, 98). The concept has been defined in a military context by Downie (1998, 22) as:
The scholarship on organisational learning has since been complemented by studies focusing on the âlearning organisationâ. The concept of the learning organisation in rooted in the work of Garrett (1987), who identified a lack of debate within business organisations about the lessons for organisational performance that could be drawn from internal practice and the external environment. A learning organisation is as Garvin (1993) notes: âskilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insightsâ (Garvin, 1993). Scholarship on the learning organisation focuses upon developing the capacity of individuals to create knowledge and enabling this knowledge to be disseminated within an organisation (Thomas and Allen 2006, 126). Hence this literature distils the factors which improve learning processes at the individual, group and organisational levels (Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2011, 3; Garrett 1987; Pedler et al. 1989; Senge 1990). For example, Garrett (1987, 78) and Goh (2012, 94) emphasise the importance of the commitment of the senior leadership of an organisation to learning. Senge (1990) points to the centrality of promoting self-reflective practice among individuals. Pedler et al. (1989) note the importance of encouraging learning across an entire organisation and identify a number of organisational characteristics which enable individuals to contribute to an organisationâs continuous transformation.
The field of organisational learning has been enriched by the emergence of the field of âknowledge managementâ (KM) in the 1990s (Weber 2007, 333). KM explores the insights of information technology theory, especially how technological advances can help with the process of obtaining, distributing, storing, recovering and disseminating knowledge (Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2001, 3; 14). It also examines how individuals and groups within an organisation interact with and manage IT systems (Gupta and McDaniel 2002). The KM literature focuses not only on how an organisation can make the most effective use of the tacit knowledge2 of individuals, but also on how it can capture knowledge from the external environment (Gupta and McDaniel 2002). In recent years, scholarly interest has emerged about KM in public sector organisations (Garlatti et al. 2014). This literature has focused on the potential that KM offers to facilitate better-informed decision-making, which can improve accountability, reduce risk, deliver improved public services and make better use of taxpayersâ money (Riege and Lindsay 2006 25â27; Seba and Rowley 2010, 612; Schulter and Sample 2006).
The following section explores the insights of KM, as well as another key sub-school of the literature on organisational learning â dynamic organisational capabilities â in understanding the key organisational processes necessary to deliver effective LL. It builds upon the scholarship of Catignani (2014) Davidson (2011); Downie (1998), Marcus (2015, 518â25, 2017) Nagl (2002) and Serena (2011) by undertaking a thorough examination of the insights that organisational learning can provide about the capabilities necessary for effective military learning. In doing so, it develops a model of LL best practice which will not only encourage military adaptation, but also help ensure that adaptation is institutionalised as innovation, when appropriate.
Dynamic organisational capabilities and LL: best practice in military learning
As recognised in the introduction to this book, single-loop learning (adaptation) and double-loop learning (emulation or innovation) exist on a continuum. This continuum stretches from single-loop learning at the level of an individual, to advanced single-loop learning at the group level within an organisation (which can, for example, characterise changes to officer education, operational design or training) or double-loop learning where change is formally codified as organisational knowledge (doctrine) (Wilson 2007, 1042). For an organisation to be capable of single-loop, advanced single-loop and double-loop learning it should cultivate a number of important processes and activities, which are best explored through the literature of dynamic organisational capabilities. It focuses on the effective use of resources and competencies by an organisation to generate greater value than its competitors and attain a competitive advantage (Schreyoegg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007, 913â33; Wernerfelt 1984, 171â80; Zahra and George 2002, 188).
The scholarship on dynamic organisational capabilities therefore displays substantial overlap with the literature on âabsorptive capacityâ (ACAP) which explores an organisationâs ability to âidentify, assimilate and exploit knowledge from the external environmentâ (Cohen and Levinthal 1989, 569â70). Dynamic organisational capabilities recognises that the human elements of an organisation are central to its success and draws together a number of the insights associated with organisational learning. It addresses, in particular, how knowledge acquisition and the management of knowledge and learning processes enhances an organisationâs ability to adapt to its strategic environment. Dynamic organisational capabilities also looks at the role of formal and informal organisational assets, such as organisational routines, norms and practices, in bolstering organisational performance (Schreyoegg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007, 913â14; Teece et al. 1997, 514â15). It provides an excellent framework to explore the key organisational activities and processes which are necessary to stimulate learning at the individual, group and organisational levels.
There is, however, contestation about the central features of dynamic organisational capabilities. Nevis et al. (1995) posit that organisational learning necessitates three key capabilities. First, knowledge acquisition: âthe development or creation of skills, insights, relationshipsâ. Second, knowledge sharing: âthe dissemination of what has been learnedâ and finally, knowledge utilisation, âthe integration of learning so that it is broadly available and can be generalised to new situationsâ.
Zahra and George (2002) build upon the insights of Nevis et al. (1995) by arguing that an organisationâs absorptive capacity is dependent upon four dynamic organisational capabilities. The first two capabilities, they argue, deliver potential absorptive capacity (PACAP), where an organisation is able to acquire and assimilate knowledge. They posit that the third and fourth capabilities are associated with realised absorptive capacity (RACAP), which refers to an organisationâs ability to exploit knowledge.
First, Zahra and George (2002) argue that an organisation should be capable of identifying and acquiring knowledge. Yet, in contrast to Nevis et al. (1995), they develop a more nuanced understanding of the process of âknowledge sharingâ which, they argue, is distinguished by two dimensions: assimilation and transformation, which comprise the second and third organisational capabilities. Hence the second capability of an organisation is its ability to assimilate knowledge through routines and processes which allow a firm to âanalyse, process, interpret and understandâ information (Zahra and George 2002, 189â90). The third capability, knowledge transformation, refers to an organisationâs ability to âdevelop and refine the routines that facilitate combining existing knowledge and the newly acquired and assimilated knowledgeâ (Zahra and George 2002, 190). Finally, knowledge exploitation denotes the capacity of an organisation to apply knowledge: âthe routines that allow firms to refine, extend, and leverage existing competencies or to create new ones by incorporating acquired and transformed knowledge into its operationsâ (Zahra and George 2002, 190).
As the NATO LL Handbook (2016, 10â13) highlights, the process of lesson learning is characterised by four basic stages. First, the creation of an observation that highlights an area of military activity that may be improved. An observation is defined as: âa comment based on something someone has heard, seen or noticed that has been identified and documented as an issue for improvement or a potential best practiceâ (NATO LL Handbook 2016, 11). An observation then enters the analysis stage where the seriousness of the problem is ascertained and, if necessary, solutions for improvement are identified (known as a âremedial actionâ). This stage of the LL process also identifies the appropriate body/bodies which should be tasked with addressing the problem.
Once these tasks have been completed, a Lesson Identified (LI) has been achieved. As the Handbook (2016, 12) notes, a LI forms âa mature observation with a determined root cause of the observed issue and a recommended remedial action and action body, which has been developed and proposed to the appropriate authorityâ. In addition to LI, a best practice may also be identified by the LL process. A best practice is âa technique, process or methodology that contributes to the improved performance of an organization and has been identified as a best way of operating in a particular area as compared to other good practice(s)â (NATO LL Handbook 2016, 12). Best practices are often only relevant to a specific operation and can rapidly become obsolete (NATO LL Handbook 2016, 12). Hence they may not necessitate formal organisational change (i.e. change to doctrine), but adaptation among certain individuals or groups within the military and are especially relevant for pre-deployment training.
Following the identification of a LI, the endorsement and tasking phase begins. During this stage a LI is formally endorsed by the leadership of the LL organisation and an âaction bodyâ is tasked with implementing a remedial action. The action body must then prepare a plan of action for the implementation of the LI and provide regular updates on its progress to the LL team. Validation will then take place, which should ensure that a measurable improvement has resulted from the remedial action phase (NATO LL Handbook 2016, 12â13). Once validation is completed, a LI becomes a Lesson Learned (LL),3 defined as âan improved capability or increased performanceâ (NATO LL Handbook 2016, 13). It then enters the final stage of the LL process: dissemination among relevant stakeholders within (and sometimes outside) the military.
Building upon Zahra and Georgeâs (2002) four dimensions of absorptive capacity, the following section distinguishes between four dynamic organisational capabilities which are necessary to realise the above stages of the LL process in an effective manner. These capabilities include knowledge acquisition, knowledge management, knowledge dissemination and finally, knowledge transformation. The section identifies a number of key organisational activities and processes which are central to delivering each individual capability (summarised in Tables 1.1â1.4).
The section concurs with Zahra and George (2002) that knowledge acquisition and knowledge management create PACAP. However, it argues that their understanding of knowledge dissemination (âknowledge exploitationâ) should not be understood as a dimension of RACAP. Rather, knowledge transformation capability, especially its key component â the establishment of a culture of experimentation and creativity â is the key determinant of whether knowledge is exploited by an organisation (Fist...
