Closing the Loop--Using learning for Wisdom

From microLINKS Wiki

The ultimate goal of a learning organization is not learning as an end but as a beginning: a beginning to integrating new knowledge into idea generation and applying the learning to improve operations, policy formulation, strategic direction and program design. Increasing knowledge application is most directly achieved by continuously allowing for reflection in the program design and policy development phases. Closing the knowledge loop is about applying learning to practice for more informed decisions and more impactful outcomes. Learning organizations achieve this by building communication processes that feed into a reiterative learning track, networking all participants along the ‘production’ chain. Closing the loop and ensuring that learning is incorporated as wisdom in new program design becomes even more important when one realizes that innovations are always more likely to occur in an effective and sustainable way for the communities we serve at the frontlines of interaction than at the headquarters or regional office^[1]. Therefore bringing field lessons learned into corporate decisions and directions is essential for effective development programming. With this ultimate goal of better program design and practice in mind, the BELO participants learned valuable lessons on ways to deliberately translate learning into improved practice.

Lessons Learned

Please do not make edits to the lessons given as these belong to the organizations that participated in this study. All comments and observations on the lessons, however, are highly encouraged, as are any additions.

Lesson #23 Ensuring that garnered knowledge comes into decision-making as institutional learning requires consecrated effort and will not happen by accident.

At FFH some existing processes already supported “closing the loop”. For instance during the annual planning and budgeting period all initiative and project leaders come together, share lessons learned and host a number of facilitated discussions to improve program design. Knowledge management as an organizational priority has caused FFH to think even deeper about its planning processes and commitment to learning and knowledge sharing. Another example of this is that annual planning meetings that used to be for program staff only are now conducted with input and feedback from other departments, such as External Affairs and Operations. Even with these efforts, organizational change is slow as processes and routines are deeply engrained. Not surprisingly, the quickest adoption of new learning routines occurred by newer organizational teams whose processes are not as deeply entrenched.

Lesson #24 Learning needs to be captured and then used (brought back into the decision making process) wherever it happens.

CARE noticed some of the experiences of country offices translated into new programming through knowledge shared in virtual discussions. For example a virtual discussion on scaling up VS&L helped CARE Malawi better position itself as a VS&L capacity builder for organizations wishing to implement the same methodology. This way, nationwide levels of VS&L could be attained outside of CARE’s direct delivery.

Lesson #25 While organizational knowledge sharing and learning may occur at some levels without management commitment, the incorporation of that learning into the organizational culture and processes requires the full buy-in and support of senior management.

At WOCCU change has been slower than with the other BELO participants, especially because of the decision to discontinue the knowledge manager position when the BELO grant ended. Senior management has been sensitized to the need to have a person dedicated to “documenting” project processes and implementation practices, but this has yet to be put into action. If implemented, this would constitute a first step in systematically applying learning into practice.

Practical Action began to promote learning conversations among staff and external actors around issues that can help staff to have more impact in the field. These learning conversations come in different formats (such as periodic conference calls, a single-issue paper series, reflections from M&E exercises, a community of practice) and they must be focused and pertinent and produce a concrete and useful product. Moreover, they need to be archived in easily accessible places, and one should proactively invite responses from program staff.

Practical Action also institutionalized key questions that encourage staff to do double-loop learning (why and why and why…) and to use past experiences. This can be done, for example, by adapting templates that staff uses during different moments of the project cycle, such as concept notes and quarterly reviews. In addition, it is crucial to have good M&E systems that alert people that “something is going on”, as well as incentives and procedures to then reflect on what is going on. Practical Action has also started to view its project cycles as learning cycles with learning, not implementation at the center.

---

Notes

1. ↑ Scott C. Beardsley, Bradford C. Johnson, and James M. Manyika (2006). Competitive advantage from better interactions, The McKinsey Quarterly, Number 2.

Return to Outline