On Lessons Learned Databases
An Business Case for Knowledge Management Reform
Many design and construction companies either have a Lessons Learned database or are striving to create one. Initially I was a proponent. With the ability to capture and deliver previous insights to teams at the right time via templates or software triggers, we could boost productivity and decrease repeat issues.
The solution lies in refining how we capture, prioritize, and communicate Lessons Learned throughout the project lifecycle.
However, after more thought and research, my opinion shifted.
In my research for ASQ's CCQM certification (I’m helping write the Body of Knowledge), I came across this quote from Tim Howarth and David Greenwood's Construction Quality Management: Principles and Practice: "However, recent research into cross-project learning led Newell to conclude that 'there is accumulating evidence that the medium of capture and transfer through ICT (information and communications technologies) such as databases and corporate intranets is limited in terms of how far such technology can actually facilitate knowledge sharing" (148).
I believe this happens because the database doesn't teach anyone anything. Yes, it tells us something, but nothing is learned. Learning is evident when people's behavior changes from the last project to the next one. That change in behavior is what actually prevents the problem from happening again.
Instead of trying to track every Lesson Learned and figure out when and where it should go, what if we instead think about how we can change project team behavior for the better? The ideas surrounding planning presented in How Big Things Get Done are a great starting point. When we see "planning" as a behavior, how can we plan better?
My current opinion is that though these databases are well-intentioned and can serve a purpose, most are productivity graveyards. Executives should abandon Lessons Learned databases and focus on communication instead. I’m concerned not with the practical tasks, rather the entire strategic approach.
I’m also concerned with the amount of time companies invest to figure out how these databases should function. How should the teams access the data? What actually constitutes a “Lessons Learned”? How do we deliver it to the teams at the right place and time so they are not overwhelmed?
There’s an endless labyrinth of process gates to make something like this truly work as intended. There’s no combination that will solve the Lessons Learned problem, and no way to correlate its impact to KPIs.
Database Delusions, and the Uniqueness Paradox
The industry currently invests significantly in technology to transfer Lessons Learned that strips away the contextual intelligence that makes construction experience valuable. We’re reducing complex coordination challenges into database entries, eliminating the nuanced understanding that prevents future problems.
To expand on my concern further, databases are great at archiving information, but they don't change behavior. Learning only occurs when teams modify their approach based on previous experience. The other issue is that executives believe all projects are unique, which creates a paradox where we try to apply insights from unique projects to future projects that are completely different, expecting them to change behavior. This belief in “uniqueness” prevents organizations from recognizing profitable patterns, yet doesn’t provide space for a database of “unique” insights to be successful. To implement Lessons Learned, we must abandon the idea that projects are unique and instead think of them as unique assemblies of standard components.
Many supposedly "unique" challenges—weather delays, scope changes, coordination problems—occur repeatedly across project types. The strategic solution is organizing knowledge around these recurring patterns, not individual project documentation.
Categorical Trending
Organizations must track individual Lessons Learned by categories. This approach mirrors how experienced professionals naturally develop expertise and make decisions. I wrote previously that the Definable Feature of Work (DFOWs) provides the perfect framework for categorical trending. They're already how your teams organize operations—excavation, electrical, concrete, roofing, mechanical, HVAC.
DFOW-based categorization creates the following competitive advantages:
Strategic Pattern Recognition: Experienced executives develop decision models organized around building types, delivery methods, and complexity levels. They apply lessons from similar projects rather than trying to remember individual cases—categorical systems match this natural intelligence.
Probability-Based Competitive Positioning: When you aggregate historical performance data by DFOW category, you develop statistical distributions for cost, schedule, and risk outcomes. This enables more accurate bidding than competitors using bottom-up estimates based on presumed project uniqueness.
Resource Allocation Optimization: Rather than trying to incorporate every lesson from previous projects, teams focus resources on the highest-risk DFOWs for specific project types. This creates scalable competitive differentiation.
ROI of Structured Conversations
Effective construction knowledge transfer and sharing of Lessons Learned occurs through communities of practice and structured conversations rather than database systems. This is more than effective soft skills. It's competitive intelligence. Knowledge sharing preserves the social context and trust relationships that drive performance improvements. Conversational approaches capture tacit knowledge, enable real-time adaptation, and build the relationships that sustain competitive advantage. Psychological safety emerges as the critical success factor for ROI. When teams feel secure discussing failures and uncertainties, they share intelligence that prevents costly future problems.
High-ROI structured conversations include:
Project Retrospectives Organized by DFOW: Instead of general "Lessons Learned" meetings, focus discussions on specific categories where problems occurred.
Cross-Project Intelligence Sharing: Bring together teams who've delivered similar building types or used comparable delivery methods.
Executive Mentorship Programs: Pair experienced leaders with emerging talent to transfer knowledge that databases cannot capture.
Technical Communities of Practice: Create ongoing dialogue processes embedded in operational workflows.
The objective is making knowledge sharing feel valuable and natural, not administrative overhead.
Effective Data Management
Lessons Learned databases by themselves don’t solve the problem without flexible frameworks that force teams to talk. This requires:
Centralized Accessibility: Cloud-based systems providing real-time access to current project intelligence without creating information silos.
Quality Assurance: Automated validation to reduce manual errors, combined with human oversight and feedback loops.
Workflow Integration: Data collection embedded in natural work processes rather than separate administrative requirements.
Human-Centered Design: Technology that makes strategic conversations more productive by providing relevant context and historical patterns organized by meaningful categories.
Implementation Strategy
Here's how to transition from database-driven to conversation-driven Lessons Learned transfer:
Develop DFOW-based Categories: Create a standardized taxonomy of Definable Features of Work for your project portfolio. Limit to 10-15 categories maximum for strategic focus. If your teams are not comfortable with the DFOW terminology, find a different name that resonates within your organization but accomplishes the same objective: organizing all your projects by components and a common language that everyone can understand.
Implement Reference Class Forecasting: For each DFOW category, develop historical performance distributions for cost, schedule, and risk outcomes. Use this intelligence for competitive bidding and resource allocation. (You can read more about this in Bent Flyvberg’s work here.)
Establish Structured Dialogue Frameworks: Create regular knowledge sharing sessions organized around DFOW categories. Focus on strategic application and competitive intelligence rather than administrative documentation.
Build Technical Communities of Practice: Form cross-project teams around core competencies. Provide time and resources for regular meetings and insight development.
Deploy Supporting Technology: Use systems that facilitate knowledge sharing, such as collaboration tools, mobile access, searchable project histories organized by strategic categories.
The Strategic Imperative
The modern organization must transition from individual database tracking to categorical knowledge sharing and pattern-based competitive intelligence. Construction's knowledge and Lessons Learned crisis stems from strategic misalignment, implementation failures, and the belief that databases can solve our problems. Database systems fail because they cannot address the human factors that drive competitive learning. Categorical trending succeeds because it matches natural cognitive patterns and enables strategic application.
Databases support human-centered knowledge transfer. Stop building Lessons Learned databases. Start building knowledge sharing communities organized around the work that drives your competitive position. As with much of the industry change that’s needed, the executive mindset must shift to drive the enhancements we need.
Your competitive advantage is how well you can get your teams to communicate. The culture you build where there are no conversational boundaries or biases, where teams think critically and learn from one another. An environment where teams reach out for information rather than hopelessly wandering the company intranet for the “magic insight” to save them.
That magic insight is someone’s brain. Not an item in the database.
Dec 12, 2025 Update: A knowledge management professional noted inconsistencies in this article by noting: “Lessons learned are a component of knowledge management, but they aren’t synonyms.” I’ve made updates throughout to accommodate.