Lessons (Actually) Learned
The Dilemma of Learning from Competitions
In the defense industry, reviewing major losses is standard. But these reviews rarely lead to lasting, systemic improvement. They often focus on surprises or significant defeats, which skews understanding of true competitiveness.
Traditional approaches rely on problem-solving specific to each loss. This narrows the findings to unique conditions that don’t translate into broader learning. As a result, organizations struggle to move from experience-based insights to teachable, repeatable knowledge.
Real learning shows up as lasting gains in a firm's ability to win. This means improving core competitive capabilities.
A capability-focused approach solves the limits of traditional reviews:
- It links findings to clear, actionable improvements.
- It uses capability maturity models to measure and guide progress across competitions.
- It shifts the focus from unique experiences to teachable, scalable tradecraft.
| Characteristics of Effective Lessons Learned Capability | Barriers to Effective Lessons Learned Capability | |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Systematic and continuous assessments of both losses and wins evaluating the win strategy, capture activities, and proposal | Bias toward conducting episodic post-mortems on most significant losses |
| Input Objectivity | Data based evaluation of all aspects of competition to prevent unintended biases | Interviews/surveys of stakeholders in the competitive capture process can lead to retrospective justification and finger pointing |
| Analysis | Evaluates process, behaviors and tradecraft using multiple methods based on transparent logic that can be tested and validated | Identification of areas driving competitive losses based on outcomes or the most easily observed evidence |
| Corrective Action | Recommends corrective actions for improvements to enterprise processes, systems, capabilities and governance as explicitly managed initiatives | Recommendations are specific to subject competition because based on experiential knowledge and unique conditions associated with competition |
| Continuous Improvement | Lessons Learned archived in a manner that enables trend analysis, which is used to implement changes to CONOPs; implementation outcomes measured for effectiveness | Lack of common criteria for conducting L2 prevent trend analysis |
| Guidance | Explicit (documented) approach to assessment to ensure consistency in evaluation | Lack of formal approach and L2-specific training and tradecraft |
A Capabilities Perspective on Learning from Competitive Performance
In today’s market, offerors must lead with a bold, clear strategy. That strategy must shape both capture and proposal efforts. Success depends on skilled execution at every stage. No single strength guarantees a win. All critical elements must work together.
Competitive outcomes reflect three essential capabilities:
- Processes and Systems: Teams must follow robust methods with discipline.
- Governance: Leaders must make informed decisions based on clear choices.
- Skills: Experts must apply refined tradecraft with consistency and confidence.
Using proven capability maturity models reveals real strengths and gaps. These models align with policy and command guidance. They deliver clear, actionable insights for improvement. They also create a shared foundation for growth across efforts.
This approach builds a reliable, repeatable path toward stronger performance. It turns experience into teachable, lasting capability.
