Presentation aipm 2015 - Hobart

Application of a Systemic Lessons Learned
Knowledge model for organisational learning
through projects
1
Stephen Duffield
Confirmed PhD Candidate USQ
@invictaprojects #SYLLK #AIPM2015
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by Stephen Duffield in this presentation are his alone, and do
not reflect the views, opinions and position of any organisation with which Stephen may be otherwise affiliated.

@invictaprojects #SYLLK #AIPM2015 2

3@invictaprojects #SYLLK #AIPM2015

PM lessons learned journey
4
(ISSEC August 2011 John Andrews)
Boeing LLdb review…2003 (not effective)…2007 (not effective), Boeing 2010 (a different approach - look at other mechanisms - repeat findings – culture)
Master of Project Management - Research
Risk Management
@invictaprojects #SYLLK #AIPM2015 http://www.pmlessonslearned.info

http://astore.amazon.com/pmlesleablo-20
80% of 74 attempt LL
60% are dissatisfied
LL fails to deliver
62% of 522 have a LL process
Only 11.7 % used it Why?

The ‘Swiss Cheese’
model of defences
Source:
Reason, J., 1990. Human error.
Cambridge University Press
Reason, J., 1997. Managing the risks of
organizational accidents. Ashgate
The term ‘Swiss cheese’ was labelled by Dr Rob Lee, then the Director of Bureau of Air
Safety Investigation, Canberra (Reason, J., 2013. A Life in Error. Ashgate.)

Source: <http://www.slideshare.net/duckcy04/deep-water-horizon-accident-investigation-lessons-learned
The Deepwater Horizon Accident – Lessons
for NASA … lessons from this tragedy are
potent reminders of the pitfalls that can
plague complex programs and projects in any
industry…even those with long track records
of success.
…government oversight, disregard for data,
testing, changes to processes and
procedures, safety culture, communications
and lessons learned

Reason’s Swiss cheese model as a concept and structure to enhance learning …
HRO’s use the Swiss cheese model
to provide a basis for trend analysis
and learning from incidents
(Hayes 2009).
Safety culture
Informed culture
Reporting culture
Just culture
Flexible culture
Learning culture
Some organisations already enhance their capacity to adapt and learn …

500+
Reason (1990, 1997)
O’Dell et al. (1998)
Busby (1999)
Williams (1999, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2012)
Keegan and Turner (2001)
Disterer (2002)
Von Zedtwitz (2002)
Bresnen et al. (2003)
Fernie et al. (2003)
Fong (2003)
Harkema (2003)
Liebowitz and Megbolugbe (2003)
Schindler and Eppler (2003)
Strang (2003)
Maqsood et al. (2004)
Liebowitz (2005)
Milton (2005, 2010)
Atkinson et al. (2006)
Maqsood (2006)
Boh (2007)
Eskerod and Skriver (2007)
Sense (2007)
Ajmal and Koskinen (2008)
Anbari et al. (2008)
Duhon and Elias (2008)
Julian (2008)
Hanisc et al. (2009)
Whitty (2009, 2012)
Ajmal et al. (2009, 2010)
Krammer (2010)
Bakker et al. (2011)
Gasik (2011)
Lindner and Wald (2011)
O’Dell and Hubert (2011)
Thomas (2012)
Pemsel and Wiewiora (2013)
Knowledge
Lessons learned
Organisational learning
Organisational knowledge
People (culture, social)
Lesson learned process
Technology and Infrastructure
Networks (complex adaptive systems)
Literature

LL models...the journey
Application
Dissemination
Culture (justculture)
Projectn
(LessonLearned)
OrganisationKnowledge
Projectn
(LessonIdentified)

Syllk model

Research Methodology
Action Research
Problem Solving Interest Research Interest
Source: Adapted from Zubert-Skerritt in Altrichter et al.(2002), McKay and Marshall (2001), McNiff
and Whitehead (2002)

Focus Groups
Facilitators Barriers
Right skilled people Takes too much time; time pressures
Right people to hand Memories fade
Training (effective) Lessons wont apply to my project
Learning from experience De-motivated
(failures, challenges, difficulties and success) Lets learn from our failure – witch hunt...
Staff with a high level of knowledge / qualifications People learn differently
Willingness/passion to share knowledge People do not learn and continue to make the same mistakes
Understand that people learn differently Difficult to teach practitioners in other parts of the organisation
(Training sessions; Technical notes; Technical forums) Different levels of knowledge and understanding
Education, training and staff development practices Technical arrogance (credibility)
Reflection Protecting ones sphere of knowledge
Poor training practices
Tone at the top Anonymous reports
Routine practices Blame
Supportive practices / supporting culture Don't have time
Help needed (help me to help you) Rapid change of staff – redeployment
Just Culture (Safety culture, learning culture, reporting culture) Internal politics (credibility)
Group (work) support in development of learning's To use lessons would reflect badly on my reputation
Understand that knowledge is power but even more so when it is shared Lack of incentives, buy-in
Develop individual knowledge sharing plans Knowledge is power
Networking encouraged and supported Shoot the messenger
Action on positive feedback Communication gap / miss-understandings
Positive leadership Delivery culture not learning culture
Respect Complex organisations; Operational silos
No senior sponsorship
Anxiety about changes
Poor leadership practices
Lack of adaptability or resilience
WIIFM (What is in it for me)
Fast moving workforce
Social behaviours
Old way the only way
Personal goals different to organisational goals
Low performance results focus culture
Financial pressures
Custom built teams Same old team
Operate as a team Not invented here
Custom build the approach (Not one size fits all) Unwillingness to share /less valuable
Keep trying different approaches Don't want to appear vulnerable and stupid by admitting mistakes
Do not personalise Teams wont share mistakes and dirty laundry - reputation
Interact with as many people as possible to capture information Resistance to change
(must have credibility) Not my problem
Teamwork approach Too stubborn
Honesty and Integrity Cynical
Provide time for unstructured interaction Politics
Generally want to improve Don't understand what it is like to work in other parts of the organisation
Good enterprise social business Poor communication - anti social behaviour - social interactions
Productive culture Personality traits
Blame environment
Competitive environment
Perceived credibility and approachability
Social polices
Shame personally exposed
Lack of trust
Poor coordination
Intranets Hard to find / locate lessons
e-libraries No way to classify lesson for easy retrieval
Wikis Not trained in use of tools
Multiple channels of information in use Poor (lack of) ICT systems and processes
Distribution of links to all targeted stakeholders Done in inconsistent ways
Ease of access through different IT solutions Too many initiatives
Systems respected and need to be part of your everyday job Restrictive audience
Poor Search facility
SharePoint 2010 governance and funding issues
Not everyone uses social media
Lack of money / funding / expensive
Too complex
Set and forget systems
Too many systems
Systems are not part of your every day job
Inappropriate focus on technology
Not being able to find what you need when you need it
Collection of data just for the sake of it
Too structured
Debriefing Willingness to conduct the process
Reviews Tick the box process / compliance
Brain Storming Procedures not being followed, don't exist, are not updated
Case Studies / Tell a story / Keep it 2 pages - simple Post-Implementation reviews not done
Dissemination (Training, Education) Takes too much time
Mentoring Lack of time to mentor
Staff Transfer Lack of enforcement
Functional management enforcement No metrics
Alignment to Risk Management Lack of formalising the process and incorporating new work
Senior management commitment Lack of consistency in following the process
Credibility - endorsement of systems in place - Imprimatur WIIFM (What is in it for me)
Simplification Lack of understanding and commitment
Capability in methodology Complacency
Contextualised Don't bother not my problem
Language (taxonomy)
Don't exist / fragmented
Lack of flexibility in approach (no complex adaption)
Read the process but don't understand the process
Process/manuals are owned by another organisation
Processes don't match with IT systems
Physical space Legal constraints
Training facilities Governance
Senior management commitment Poor facilitation
Good user interface/useability/search Time poor
Lack of financial/funding support
Language (taxonomy) / poor search
Don't have access to emerging technology
Remote sites have limited infrastructure (Don't assume everyone has
what you may have)
Systems-Process
Systems-Infrastructure
Positive openings (facilitators) and negative impediments (barriers) within each lessons learned element/variable:
People-Social
People-Learning
People-Culture
Systems-Technology
One Project Manager stated that “we were getting lots of push
from our KM team to get lessons learned going and get it
implemented to meet deliverables, had we had the model we
would have been able to present to the Directors to show them
what needs to be invested in to do it properly, as it is not just
about doing a process.”
How can the Syllk model help?
“helps with the change management process”
“can represent knowledge storage and found some alignment
with a complex organisational brain”
“hard to get a lesson learned through, so it is not just about
having a database, it is not just about one thing it is about a
series of things ... I like the way it kind of stacks it up and shows
it working”
BarriersFacilitators

Cycle 1
IKnow(Branch)
Status
Cycle 2
(sub-Branch)CK
Status
Cycle 3
(sub-Branch)CK
Status
Best Practice Directory PI Best Practice Directory [Capital Infrastructure Requirements] I Best Practice Directory [Capital Infrastructure Requirements] I
Lessons Learned PI Lessons Learned [Project Reviews, Building Performance Evaluations] I Lessons Learned [Project Reviews, Building Performance Evaluations] I
Story telling TI Stories [Storytelling part of (sub-Branch)CK-CoP] PI Stories [Storytelling part of (sub-Branch)CK-CoP, lunch box talks] I
Questions and Answers NI Questions and Answers [Social Media] TI Questions and Answers [Social Media] PI
Communities of Practice I Communities of Practice I Communities of Practice [(sub-Branch)CK CoP, Interface meetings] I
Special Interest Groups TI (sub- Branch)CK [Special Interest Groups/Social Media sub-groups] TI (sub-Branch)CK [Special Interest Groups/Social Media sub-groups] PI
Portal TI Portal [Social Media - (sub-Branch)CK] TI Portal [Social Media [Yammer] - (sub-Branch)CK] PI
Yellow Pages NI (sub-Branch)CK Connect [Social Media] TI (sub-Branch)CK Connect [Social Media [Yammer]] PI
Knowledge Audit TI (sub-Branch)CK Knowledge Audit PI
E-learning NI
Mentoring / buddying NI
Performance appraisals TI
Implemented I
Part implemented PI
Tried to implement TI
No implementation NI @invictaprojects #SYLLK #AIPM2015 14
Research Projects
Project A Project B Project C
Best Practice Directory
Lessons Learned
Story telling Story telling
Questions and Answers
Communities of Practice Communities of Practice
Special Interest Groups (Special Interest Groups)
Portal Portal Portal
Knowledge Audit
Yellow Pages
E-learning
Mentoring / buddying
Performance appraisals

Syllk facilitators, barriers, KM practices and framework
Appendix 1

Duffield, S., Whitty, S.J., 2015. Developing a systemic
lessons learned knowledge model for organisational
learning through projects. International journal of
project management, 33, 311-324.
Duffield, Stephen and Whitty, Jonathan (2012) A
systemic lessons learned and captured knowledge
(SLLCK) model for project organizations. In: 9th Annual
Project Management Australia Conference (PMOz
2012), 15-16 Aug 2012, Melbourne, Australia
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.004
http://www.invictaprojects.com.au/pmlessonslearned
blog/?page_id=967
http://www.invictaprojects.com.au/pmlessonslearned
blog/?page_id=447
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/22706/

Contact Stephen for further information:
Stephen Duffield MPM CPPD
http://www.pmlessonslearned.info
stephen@pmlessonslearned.info
@invictaprojects
Contact Jon for further information:
Dr S. Jonathan Whitty BEng(Hons) PhD
Senior Lecturer in Project Management
Program Coordinator - Master of Project Management
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/profile/477
jon.whitty@usq.edu.au
@jon_whitty

Powering up your capability with
the SyLLK Model
Watch the Syllk video…
To make a great cup of coffee, there are six elements that must all be in balance;
•learning (staff skills and expertise)
•culture (values and beliefs)
•social (relationships between staff and other)
•technology (artefacts, tools, equipment and IT systems)
•process (routines, practices and tasks)
•infrastructure (physical facilities and spaces).
If just one of these elements is out of balance, the capability of the café to make a
consistently great cup of coffee will be compromised. Just think what would happen if the
café didn’t have the right sort of coffee machine (technology) or what if the Barista didn’t
particularly like coffee or care how it tastes (culture)?
But just how can we use this simple lesson in coffee making to improve the capabilities of
our whole organisation?
http://www.usq.edu.au/research/executive-insights/syllk-model
Register on-line for a lunchtime session (29 October 2015)

Presentation aipm 2015 - Hobart

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Presentation aipm 2015 - Hobart

Similar to Presentation aipm 2015 - Hobart (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Presentation aipm 2015 - Hobart