Results and Outcomes--Conclusion

What have been the results so far in terms of becoming more effective learning organizations? And what have been the impacts of improved knowledge sharing and learning on organizational or program performance? The latter question is difficult to answer at this time, in part because the period since adopting new KS&L practices by the BELO participants has been too short to expect measurable outcomes, but also because there is no clear understanding yet by the BELO organizations and learning organizations in general as how a link can be established between improved KS&L and outcomes of improved program design and implementation. The BELO participants identified the issue of outcome measurement as one that merits future attention, because ultimately demonstrable outcomes are critical to convince both external and internal stakeholders of the benefits of KS&L.

Ramalingam’s 2005 study^[1] looked at knowledge and learning initiatives in a range of development organizations. Many were heavily resource-constrained NGOs, and some were government organizations and multilaterals that were far more heavily resourced. Interestingly, however, there was a common finding across the case studies: the learning approach is something an organization always aspires to. Learning, therefore, seems to be a continuous process of becoming rather than attainment—an organization is ‘learning’ not ‘learned’. This finding is corroborated by evidence from many other sectors. Even the most accomplished of initiatives reviewed in the present study, then, is marked, internally at least, by a sense of dissatisfaction due to the drive for continuous improvement that is at the heart of knowledge and learning work. This drive is well-placed, and crucial to the vision of knowledge and learning.

However, there is clearly a need to accept the resource constraints that inevitably exist for such activities and then work towards goals that as far as possible are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound and appropriate to a given organization. Perhaps one way to do this is to clarify the assumptions that are at the heart of a learning strategy about how ideas get taken up and utilized within policy and practice. The latest ALNAP^[2] strategy refers to seven assumptions, adapted from work in the health sector, that underlie efforts to better use learning to improve practices. They are as follows:

The existence of comprehensive, credible evidence based on learning exercises, including;
The ability of such evidence to provide a direct guide to decision-making in specific circumstances;
Knowledge of such evidence by all relevant actors;
Adequate resources (e.g. time, money, capacities) to act upon the evidence from learning exercises;
Sufficient incentive to apply the evidence;
Absence of substantial disincentives (material or non-material) to applying the evidence;
An implementation chain sufficiently short to ensure a good likelihood of compliance with the implications of the evidence.

Arguably, any learning initiative is focused on making the first three of these assumptions “true”. However, assumptions 4-7 are largely beyond the scope of a learning initiative. Given this, it may seem that the results achieved by the participants can be seen as both important and remarkable. Several are worth mentioning:

It is possible to become a more effective learning organization or at least to start the process and create the momentum. All four organizations have made significant progress in this regard, with strong participation from staff at all levels to improve knowledge sharing and learning. Perhaps WOCCU has been an exception in that buy-in from top management was not strong and the job of knowledge manager was not continued beyond the BELO project.
The levels of investment required are not exaggerated. The BELO grant was very important to produce initial results that helped convince key people of the benefits of KS&L and spend more of the organization’s budget on it. For the long term, however, funds are less important than commitment, creativity and sensitivity to staff's needs and interests.
Technology alone will not make an organization more effective at learning but it can help, especially with increased restrictions on face-to-face meetings. Similarly, theory and previous experience with KS&L are helpful, but common sense is even more important.
Leadership by KS&L champions is fundamental. This role was played in the first place by the BELO project managers themselves. All with the exception of WOCCU had full support from senior management and were able to recruit other KS&L champions from amongst their colleagues. It is probably impossible (and unnecessary) to get all staff involved in KS&L from the get-go, but a core group of key staff committed to KS&L is the best way to increase and institutionalize KS&L processes.
Importantly, KS&L activities are not always at play within an organization or program. They happen at specific moments and within and across certain groups of people. Good KS&L facilitators must use those moments and work with those people to maximize their impact.
Finally, according to all the BELO participants, the funds provided for KS&L are more than worth it. For development organizations to enter into a virtuous circle of more efficiency and more impact per unit of funding, investments in KS&L are essential. Donors can play a crucial role either by funding KS&L pilots as in case of BELO or by awarding those organizations who show progress towards becoming more effective learning organizations and can show results in their performance in meeting donor goals and requirements.

[edit]