When Learning Stops

Learning rarely follows a linear, upward progression. People forget what they once knew; institutional memory fades; obstacles of all kinds block individuals and groups from making progress. Sometimes an initially successful program or approach stops delivering results. When that occurs in a business setting, managers are bound to ask, What happens when the learning stops? This question was posed by Ian ­Stuart, an associate professor of supply chain and quality ­management at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and Paul Deckert, a manufac­turing and logistics manager at Rockwell Auto­mation Inc., Ontario, Canada, in a recent paper of that title.

The authors were following up on research they discussed in an article published in the summer 1998 issue of Sloan Management Review, “A Leveraged Learning Network” (written with co-authors David McCutcheon and Richard Kunst). In it, they wrote about Allen-Bradley Canada, a manufacturer of electric control panels also based in Cambridge, Ontario, and part of Rockwell Automation. In 1990, Allen-Bradley faced severe resource constraints, an increasingly competitive marketplace and a product line perceived by customers as overpriced and supported by weak customer service. Some companies in those circumstances would pressure their suppliers and distributors, the authors note, but Allen-Bradley did not have the clout to force price reductions or service improvements. Instead, it allied with a small group of its key suppliers in a “leveraged learning network.” The members’ goal was to bring their manufacturing operations collectively up to world-class standards. The High Performance Manufacturing Consortium, as it came to be known, would focus on improving its members’ performance in such areas as number of product rejects, percentage of on-time deliveries and amount of unscheduled downtime.

The consortium’s principal organizing mechanism was its special interest groups. Members of a group would support a particular management theme (such as team-based problem solving), gain and share concept knowledge, and then customize and apply the concept in their own manufac­turing plants. These organized opportunities to learn from one another were critical to the consortium’s cohesion. And over a six-year per­iod (1992–1997), the results were impressive. The data analyzed in a detailed scorecard indicated that the consortium’s 12 companies went from an average of about 25% in meeting world-class standards to about 70%.

But could such progress be sustained? Stuart and Deckert reviewed detailed performance data, conducted one-on-one interviews and attended quarterly meetings of the consortium in order to find out. Assessing the quantitative and qualitative evidence, they discovered a gradual and steady decline in performance since 1997. Average levels of world-class performance dropped to about 65% by 1999, the last year in which quantitative assessments were made. And the authors found many telling indicators of weak learning. For example, training workshops were regularly canceled or postponed due to insufficient interest. Similarly, special interest group activity had diminished considerably; at one point, only four groups were active. There were at least a dozen other indicators of waning enthusiasm for the consortium’s work.

Beginning in 2003, the consortium tried to regain momentum. For example, the board of directors held a management retreat in which the leveraged learning concept was scrutinized in great detail. The board identified barriers to overcome and made recommendations for improvement. In addition, the consortium instituted a peer review process to address low levels of commitment. Each member company began to receive an annual assessment of its degree of commitment as demonstrated by participation levels, learning contributions and leadership in consortium activities. If a member were to receive consistently low scores, it would be dismissed, regardless of the financial implications — as one company found out in August 2003. While it is too early to gauge the results of such changes, member enthusiasm was on the upswing and there was no shortage of companies seeking to join the consortium.

Stuart and Deckert believe that the experience of the High Performance Manufacturing Consortium — especially the group’s stagnation from 1997 through 2002 — holds lessons for all companies grouped together in a leveraged learning network as a means to improve business performance. They propose a four-step approach to sustainable learning.

Understand Management-Model Limits and Discard Old Models?Company networks have to be prepared to recognize when they have reached the saturation point for learning with a particular management model. At a certain point, the model should be abandoned or applied in new ways. The High Performance Manufacturing Consortium had a single-minded focus on implementing the principles of lean manufacturing on the shop floor. By the late 1990s, it would have done better to apply lean concepts to other organizational functions (such as sales, marketing and order entry) or to the extended supply chain (supplier network, distributor network); alternatively, it should have sought out other business-improvement models.

Maintain a Needs-Driven Agenda?While that sounds obvious, it doesn’t just happen of its own accord. Other factors can come into play. For example, the consortium fell into the trap of allowing an external model to dictate its activities. Member commitment generally follows from internally driven agendas. It is telling that the most active current special interest group involves the adoption process for the revised ISO 9000:2000 certification, a real need for some consortium members.

Clearly Define the Facilitator’s Role?Again, the facilitator of any given group may have an agenda that differs from that of the members. The consortium, for example, used an outside consultant to facilitate its activities. Over time, members became confused about his role within the group and within the consulting firm. Adopting a needs-driven approach is the key to defining the facilitator’s role effectively.

Live the Mission?Commitment to a learning agenda comes from shared vision and dedication. The admission process must be rigorous; continued membership in the group should depend on demonstrated commitment. Formal mechanisms are necessary to assess learning benefits and reinforce the value of participation.

It is too early to pass final judgment on the leveraged learning network, the authors say. Although the stagnation evident in the past few years in the High Performance Manufacturing Consortium provides cautionary lessons, the researchers believe the group’s actions will lead to renewed success.

For additional information on the September 2003 paper “When the Learning Stops: Sustaining Leveraged Learning Trajectories,” contact Stuart at istuart@business.uvic.ca.