Talk:Lessons learned

This article was nominated for deletion on December 28 2005. The result of the discussion was delete.

It seems that the deletion tag refers to a previously deleted article, not this newly created one. Should the tag be removed/altered to avoid confusion? Hirumeshi (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broadening this article out - obstacles to learning lessons

Here in the UK, whenever there is a scandal or some corruption or injustice uncovered such as in the NHS, without fail the old cliche "lessons will be learnt" is wheeled out. But in practice lessons rarely ever are learnt - the same blunders tend to keep happening over and over again. I have been unable to find any sources as yet but it would be great if any research could be found analysing what are the obstacles to learning lessons. Often a report is commissioned into a mishap which may have fine aspirations but the recommendations often do not get implemented much in practice because of some sort of inertial resistance. People tend to talk the talk but then not walk the walk. I have my own ideas about why this is but obviously I cannot use them in this article as it would be original research.--Penbat (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "in practice lessons rarely ever are learnt", LL does not warrant that lessons are learned, but it established a systematic approach to experience and knowledge information. "Often a report is commissioned" - That is not a LL nor a LL system. It is a report adding information to a certain situation. A LL can point to a report. "People tend to talk the talk but then not walk the walk." - What people do is what people do. If, however, a LL system is available, that will add to a learning environment. As my recommendation, this article should stick to the very model of LL, not specifics in specific cases or organizations. Kind Regards 17387349L8764 (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on "Lessons learned"

Evidence of "learning" is a change in behaviour.

One of the "obstacles" lies in the name itself which is often used as the title of a box to be filled in on a document called an "incident report" or similar.

My suggestion is that the "lessons learned" section should be replaced by a "behaviour changed" section. The content of which could be:

(a) Behaviour that led to the incident"

(b) New behaviour that will avoid a repeat of this incident.

(c) Plan for changing from (a) to (b)

(d) Person responsible for making the plan happen.

A "behaviour" can be specified and modeled as a process. Ken Evans 20:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans (talk • contribs)

Hi, maybe, but LL are more than behavior. They are lessons for everything, also non-human. Inducing a behavior change is somewhat out of scope for a LL system. The system can adapt certain organizational themes and general policies, but should not tell people to change. It is meant as a base of information and moreover experiences gained in the past or about a specific thing that is still part of the organization that operates the LL system. KR --17387349L8764 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essay like material removed

I just removed some poorly drafted material again. Firstly you don't start a section with a reference - especially when that reference is context specific (emergency nursing) and does not support the rest of the text. If we just take the starting phrases "There are many methodologies for learning lessons- all based on analyzing the past; understanding causing factors and their corresponding root causes; and suggesting recommendations for the future. The most common methodology After Action Review (AAR), was introduced by the US Marines" this may be the opinon of the editor but it is not supported by references and is plain wrong. You can't make the ALL statement as it is plain wrong anyway, and no references are provided to support it. Similarily the "most common methodology" statement cannot be made in wikipedia's voice without some third party reference - and that does not mean tagging in a reference such as the opening one. It means someone who has looked at the whole field and drawn that conclusion in a reliable source. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Programme m and e design

What does it mean 165.58.129.239 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]