There will also be a Europe conference of NetImpact (www.netimpact.org) in Geneva in June (12th-13th). As part of this, there will be a session on IO performance/effectiveness/efficiency measurement and management. I think it would be great if you could speak about your views (with regards to LLs, etc.) on this conference. What do you think?

The NetImpact audience would be much different (I think more willing to listen), as well as younger and so readier to absorb these messages. NetImpact is a social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility NGO which has just started growing in Europe. It works with and for MBA students, graduates and practitioners interested in positive social and environmental change.

Good point about the disconnect between capacity building and information management within organisations – different units dealing with them, with very little communication between the two.

Update: I may get the chance to present some of this at the Global Cluster meeting in Geneva, so that will provide some opportunity!

If others have already published heaps in this, then may be you could try to differentiate by highlighting what others have not so far.

In your post, you mention that training (i.e., capacity building) would be essential for lessons to be learnt. In the organisation where I am currently, the (obvious) linkages between knowledge and information management and capacity building are very poor. For this reason, because both are (and when they are) happening in separate, there is no capacity being built for what it matters. And so, no training for learning the lessons that have to be learnt.

So, perhaps training per se is not the issue here, but rather training without knowing why the particular training is needed and knowing not by individuals but by the organisation.

This is very complex. Communicating it in a few messages that are simple would make a difference. I guess this is one thing you and Neil could do.

- find out on the organisational structure and context relevant to the LLs; in fact, you most probably would have done this already, so focus more on the players and less on the information
- look through the complexity of players, roles, jobs, etc. to articulate a simple case for change -> for LLs to take in, who should do more of what, or differently? who does not understand what? … who does not know what they should know? how do they get to know this?
- communicate the simple case for change to all who are/would be involved in it, again focusing more on the players and less on the information
- surprise the people you work with, do not just be ‘the expert’, even though this may be what they pay you for

The above is very general and it would be up to you and Neil to make it more specific.

(may be) What it takes is being creative after having been analytical. A zoom-in -> zoom-out -> zoom-in approach. A different approach. Isn’t it that imagination is more important than knowledge? (Einstein)

So here’s a dilemma for me and Neil, who drafted the LLs. Neither of us are going to be going back to Bangladesh, and neither of us are full-time employees of the organisations that need to implement the LLs. How can we help to make these LLs come alive for those organisations?

It is true that Lessons Learnt almost never get learnt, at least not in the bureaucracies that I have experienced (UN Agencies, public sector and IOs). Why is this difficult to do? Because learning the lessons means going through a process not just as individuals but also as organisation. Whereas the first is done by people, I think the second is more about people leading other people. And, good leadership, or just leadership, is often lacking, at least so in the organisations with which I have been. I do not think that somebody is to blame for this. It is just that the ways in which these organisations are make leadership a bit impossible. It may be that this is because there are barriers to information sharing. This is just not giving people the freedom to lead.

What have I tried to do in such situations…? In addition to giving the usual talk about having to learn and implement the lessons learnt, I usually try to do at least one of the two: 1) involve people in a conversation about the need to learn the lessons learnt and change something in the organisation and 2) have them agree on a set of simple steps through which to begin some follow-up. These two are actually quite challenging. 1 is also about creating urgency and building on existing relationships among people.
It is true that the above are quite ’soft’ approaches, but I think there are plenty of ‘hard’ data- and information-driven approaches around which are just not being used very well. These are certainly great, but if an organisation is to learn something, it will have to change its work culture and being systematic about such changes does not always work provided there is no leadership.

There was just a seminar in the organisation where I currently work on knowledge sharing and capacity building, creating a lot of momentum around these two issues. There is now the danger to forget about what has happened. I plan to involve the people I’ve worked with on preparing the seminar in a follow-up sort of a conversation. We should think about how it went and create a process through which to involve seminar participants in a conversation. This should tie well with the rest of the work, as this is how it would integrate with existing work practices and approaches.