ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THROUGH POST-PROJECT REVIEWS IN R&D doc

Organizational learning through
post-project reviews in R&D
Maximilian von Zedtwitz
IMD – International Institute for Management Development, P.O. Box 915, CH-1001 Lausanne, Switzerland,

Post-project reviews are one opportunity to systematically improve performance in subsequent projects.
However, a survey reveals that only one out of five R&D projects receives a post-project review. Post-
project reviews – if they take place – are typically constrained by lack of time and attention as well as
lack of personal interest and ability. They focus mostly on technical output and bureaucratic
measurements; process-related factors such as project management are rarely discussed.
In this paper we review the role of post-project meetings as a tool to improve organizational learning at
the group level. Based on 27 in-depth interviews with R&D managers carried out between 1997 and 2001,
we categorize four classes of learning impediments. These difficulties are not easily resolved, as is
illustrated by examples from Hewlett-Packard, DaimlerChrysler, SAP, Unisys, the US Army, and
others. We propose a five-level post-project review capability maturity model, identifying some of the key
capabilities that need to be in place in order to advance to the next process maturity level. Most
companies reside on the first or second maturity level. Our conclusion is that many companies give away
great potential for competence building by neglecting post-project reviews as a tool for systematic inter-
project learning.
1. Introduction
W
hat do you take away from a finished project? A
product? A lesson? A bad feeling? The essence is
that most companies have not established a structured
approach to learning from projects after their comple-
tion. Even worse, most projects that have been
prematurely terminated never undergo a retrospective
analysis on their causes of failure. A recent survey
indicated that 80% of all R&D projects are not
reviewed at all after completion, and most of the
remaining 20% were reviewed without established

review guidelines.
This paper raises the issue of organizational learning
through post-project reviews. A post-project review is
here defined as a formal review of the project examining
the lessons that may be learned and used to the benefit
of future projects. Post-project reviews – or post-
reviews – are more prevalent in industries where
knowledge is the main output of a project. For instance,
consultants regularly perform after-action reviews in
order to capture lessons learned from their engagements.
Project reviews are commonly used as phase reviews,
particularly in projects managed under the stage-gate
paradigm. The final review, however, is either focused
exclusively on technical issues or dropped altogether
due to time and management constraints. Post-project
reviews should aim at capturing process knowledge for
enhancement of future project work, and hence differ
from regular project reviews, project audits (Duffy,
1989; Neale and Homes, 1990), or project evaluations
(Saladis, 1993).
In this paper we propose a five-level capability
maturity model for post-project review processes in
R&D. Based on our review of the literature on
organizational learning and R&D project manage-
ment, we identify eight fundamental impediments to
post-project reviews in R&D. We reflect on a few
R&D Management 32, 3, 2002.
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 255
108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

observations on how to cope with these impediments
to promote organizational learning based on team
performance.
2. Research methodology
At the intersection of group learning and R&D project
management practice, the study of post-project reviews
has not attracted widespread interest from R&D
management researchers until recently. Little research
has been published in the academic or management
literature. In addition, practitioners have repeatedly
voiced their concern about the lack of established
criteria and guidelines to conduct post-project reviews,
but their focus on future project challenges usually
distracts them from a retrospective analysis of the past.
The research leading to this paper is based on a
combinative effort of doctoral research, in-depth
interviews with R&D managers, and survey explora-
tion. As the goal of the paper is to identify current
R&D post-project review practices and propose
managerial recommendations on how to improve
them, we chose to begin with a broad interviewing
sample for variety and reach of insight, preparing for a
focused and limited in-depth investigation that will
eventually produce a richer and more substantiated
output in our ongoing study. As our level of analysis,
we chose the boundary between individual and team
learning.
Between 1997 and 2001, we conducted a total of 27
interviews with R&D managers of leading companies
from a wide range of technology-intensive industries

and geographical regions. The interviews were con-
ducted according to an interview guideline that focused
on project management in R&D, specifically learning
and information sharing in R&D teams. Interview
minutes were returned to the interviewees for feedback,
comments and additional interpretation. Where possi-
ble, we participated in project meetings and post-
project reviews. This personal observation comple-
mented the interview data well. Data triangulation, as
demanded by Yin (1991), was not possible in every
instance as very little has been published by either the
interviewed companies or third parties on the investi-
gated projects. However, we had access to post-project
reports of some of the studied companies.
In addition to the interviews, we conducted two
surveys of R&D post-project review practice in 2000
and 2001. Sixty-three R&D directors and managers of
different organizations participated in our question-
naire of the current state of R&D post-project reviews
in their companies, including information about
frequency and motivation of post-project reviews as
well as process-related factors during their execution.
As this is ongoing research, we expect our under-
standing to be refined with the progress of this work.
Our analysis based on the initial survey (see Koners
and Zedtwitz, 2001) was confirmed by findings from
the second survey conducted a year later. Considering
all currently available data, however, we are confident
that the present report presents a fairly reliable picture
of the fundamental issues of managing post-project

R&D reviews.
3. Post-project reviews in organizational
learning and R&D management
3.1. Defining post-project reviews
According to the great satirist and critic George
Bernard Shaw, ‘we learn from experience that men
never learn anything from experience’. Luckily, re-
search in organizational learning over the past decades
shows an improving understanding of how people and
organizations learn (see Easterby-Smith et al. (2000)
for a concise and recent review). Among a number of
important mechanisms, the post-project review is one
of the most structured and most widely applicable
approaches to passing on experience from one team to
the next.
We define a post-project review as the final formal
review in the course of a project that examines any
lessons that may be learned and used to the benefit of
future projects (see also the projectnet.com definition
and Wideman, 1992). This section, as well as the
following section on team learning (including Figure 1
and Table 1), is strongly based on the contribution of
Ursula Koners to our joint publication reporting
findings from the initial post-project review survey
(Koners and Zedtwitz, 2001). The main objective of
post-project reviews is to initiate and facilitate
continuous learning on all levels within an organiza-
tion. Learning effectively protects and enhances an
organization’s competitive advantage (e.g. Wheel-
wright and Clark, 1992; Johannessen et al., 1997;

Gupta, 1998; Drejer and Riis, 1999; Takeuchi and
Nonaka, 1986).
Learning is critical in R&D organizations since it is
the precondition for sustaining significant improve-
ments over long periods of time. The body of knowl-
edge on learning in R&D and New Product
Development has been growing in recent years, but
the variety of learning concepts studied is immense and
the underlying processes are still scarcely known (e.g.
Reger and von Wichert-Nick, 1997). One major
drawback is the absence of investigations on learning
in R&D after a project is actually finished. Most of the
existing literature on post-project reviews in R&D
repeats their importance and the fact that few
organizations conduct post-project reviews regularly.
Generally, the final phase of an R&D project
concentrates on issues like the financial closure, the
project appraisal and the reallocation of equipment
and workforce to future projects (EIRMA, 1998). This
Maximilian von Zedtwitz
256
R&D Management 32, 3, 2002
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
paper wants to advance the discussion further in the
direction of inter-project learning capabilities – and
barriers – in post-project reviews in R&D.
3.2. From team learning to organizational
learning
Argyris (1977) defined organizational learning as ‘a

process of detecting and correcting error’. The notion
of organizational learning has since evolved (see e.g.
Crossan and Guatto, 1995; or Garvin’s (1993) defini-
tion of ‘an organization skilled at creating, acquiring
and transferring knowledge and at modifying its
behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights’).
We distinguish between three levels of learning:
individual learning, team and group learning, and
organizational learning (see Figure 1). At the basis of
all learning is the individual (e.g. Barker and Neailey,
1999, p. 60). Individual learning is the domain of
psychology and cognitive science; organizational learn-
ing is studied by social psychologists and organization
theorists. In this context, team learning may have a
pivotal role in distributing, processing and interpreting
individual experience for organizational memory and
knowledge.
Post-project reviews focus on the link between team
and organizational learning, and – as we will discuss
below – on the link between individual and organiza-
tional learning. The process of organizational learning
through team learning is best described in Argyris and
Scho
¨
n’s (1978) concept of single-loop and double-loop
learning. Single-loop learning pertains to the detection
and correction of mismatches between experience and
a reference system without questioning or altering the
values of the system. Double-loop learning takes place
when a mismatch is detected and used to adapt and

correct the reference system.
Post-project reviews (should) focus on double-loop
learning. After the completion of the project – when
the project team is ready to step back and reconsider
what it has done and what has happened – the team is
in the best position to review cause-and-effect relation-
ships and should be required to propose improvements
for the management and execution of future projects.
Unfortunately, for a number of reasons which we
outline further below, few teams find the appropriate
amount of time for this exercise. Most learning is
confined to individual learning, and substantial poten-
tial for group learning is missed. Although individual
learning is an important ingredient of organizational
learning, both the depth and reach of individual
experience are on average more limited.
3.3. Learning in the life of an R&D project
A review is certainly not the only way to learn in or
from a project. Although learning and knowledge
accumulation in R&D are at the core of R&D,
knowledge dissemination to other scientists and R&D
managers is poorly facilitated and supported. Learn-
ing, state Ayas and Zeniuk (2001, p. 64), ‘is not a
natural outcome of projects knowledge created
within a project is not always diffused, and lessons
learned may not be shared across projects’.
Learning through reviewing is one of the most
frequent approaches to capitalizing on previous
experience, and many R&D project management
concepts (such as stage-gate (O’Connor, 1994; Cooper

and Kleinschmidt, 1991) or milestone techniques) are
based on formal points of reflection.
1
Figure 2
illustrates a schematized phase model of R&D project
reviews (Balanchandra and Brockhoff, 1995, p. 32).
It would be dangerous, however, to focus exclusively
on formal methods of learning and neglect other
informal and tacit means of knowledge and experience
building. Some of the greatest advances in R&D
management in the 1990s have been soft and informal
management techniques, which tend to be extremely
effective at the individual learning level. However, they
are difficult to systemize and replicate.
For example, SAP carries out a number of different
reviews over the course of an R&D project. Reviews
Individual Learning
Team/Group Learning
Organizational Learning
Levels of LearningHow does learning occur?
Knowledge
acquisition
Information
Distribution
Information
Interpretation
Organizational
Memory
How is knowledge embodied?
•

Personal memory
•
Personal experience
•
Notes
•
Individual capabilities
•
Networks
•
Reports
•
Products
•
Team-specific expertise
•
Technologies
•
Stories / Anecdotes
•
Databases
•
Procedures
•
Processes
•
Core competencies
Figure 1. From team learning to organizational learning (based on Huber, 1991).
Learning through post-project reviews
#

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 3, 2002 257
can be held as specification reviews, design reviews,
coding reviews, and even reviews of online documenta-
tion. Reviews are designed to ensure that everyone has
access to the same project-critical information; infor-
mation that is important for discussing problems and
finding solutions, discovering potential risk areas,
status tracking, introducing new design proposals,
coordination with other groups, and success checks.
Reviews are not necessarily formalized and are some-
times held in small, informal group meetings. How-
ever, the results of reviews should always be recorded
in project documentation.
Learning from reviews is not limited to the life-time
of an R&D project. While a final post-project review
closes out the current project, it may also create the
grounds for a new project. For instance, after the
development of a client=server wholesale banking
software product by Unisys, a post-project meeting
(post-mortem in their terminology) was called includ-
ing the programme manager, the customer project
manager, the responsible Unisys International Engi-
neering Center project manager, the Unisys Interna-
tional Banking Service Center development director,
its support manager, and its GUI engineer, the
product’s marketing representatives, and the European
marketing manager. Based on reviews carried out by
the Engineering Center the future benefits of lever-
aging the development work, including process
improvements for future projects and specific require-

ments for product internationalization, the Engineer-
ing Center and the Banking Service Center agreed to
collaborate on a localization project of the banking
software. Here the post-project review was not only a
triggering event to identify additional market potential
for the just completed development project, but was
also a means to help marketing people use engineering
information for future project bids.
Post-project reviews thus help improve learning
from one R&D project to the next. Post-project
reviews introduce a systematic way to double-loop
learning by making project-specific knowledge and
Idea
Stage I:
Feasibility
Stage II:
Development
Stage III:
Test Market
Stage IV:
Commercialization
Review
Review
Review
Review
Project
Graveyard
Figure 2. Stages in the life of an R&D project (source: Balanchan-
dra and Brockhoff, 1995, p. 32).
Organizational

and Technical
Knowledge Pool
Idea
Stage I:
Feasibility
Stage II:
Development
Stage III:
Test Market
Stage IV:
Commercialization
Review
Review
Review
Review
Idea
Stage I:
Feasibility
Stage II:
Development
Stage III:
Test Market
Stage IV:
Commercialization
Review
Review
Review
Review
Post-Project
Double-

Loop
Learning
Single-
Loop
Learning
Figure 3. Double loop learning through post-project reviews in
R&D projects.
Table 1. Differences between single- and double-loop learning.
‘Single loop’ ‘Double loop’
Characteristics
*
Occurs through repetition and routine
*
Occurs through use of insights and non-routine
*
Well-understood context
*
Ambiguous context
*
Occurs at all levels in organizations
*
Occurs mostly in upper levels
Consequence
*
Behavioural outcomes
*
Insights and collective consciousness
Examples
*
Institutionalizes formal rules

*
New missions and new definitions of direction
*
Adjustments in management systems
*
Agenda setting
*
Problem-solving skills
*
Problem-defining skills
*
Development of myths, stories and culture
Application in
post-project
reviews
å Discussion of variances in expenditures, missed
deadlines etc.
å Suggestions for the application of lessons
learned to future projects
å Retrospective analysis of major obstacles
experienced
å Deep analysis of cause-effect relations
regarding major obstacles experienced
Source: adapted from Fiol and Lyles (1985, p. 810).
Maximilian von Zedtwitz
258
R&D Management 32, 3, 2002
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
experience available to a corporate-wide pool of

organizational and technical knowledge (see Figure 3).
But few companies have achieved double-loop
learning with the help of post-project reviews. Post-
project reviews can limit double-loop learning if they
are too inward-oriented and focused on a reactionary
agenda. Table 1 illustrates the differences between
what constitutes single-loop and double-loop learning
in current PPR practices. Most can be generally
described as ‘single-loop’ and are therefore restricting
their inherent learning potential.
4. A review of current post-project review
practices in R&D
4.1. Results from an exploratory survey on
R&D post-project reviews
Although most R&D organizations seem to under-
stand the potential benefit of post-project reviews, they
still do not make full use of this learning opportunity.
We conducted two surveys among a group of R&D
directors and senior R&D managers on the extent and
quality of R&D post-project reviews in which they had
participated. The venues were two executive training
events on innovation management held at a business
school in September 2000 and October 2001. We
collected a total of 63 valid responses. This number is
too low to warrant in-depth statistical evaluation, but
it does allow some interesting observations about the
state of R&D post-project reviews.
On average, 19.4% of R&D projects in which the
respondents had participated had been post-reviewed.
Although post-project reviews were conducted in

almost every company and within most departments
represented, post-project reviews were conducted
mostly on an ad hoc basis or after particularly large
projects. Only 12 (of 63) respondents indicated that
their companies tried to post-review as many projects
as possible, and 55.6% of the respondents stated that
their companies had not established formal guidelines
on how post-project reviews were to be conducted.
17.5% of the respondents indicated that post-project
reviews followed similar practices to those employed in
earlier projects, and only 11.1% of the respondents’
companies had defined review practices.
The most popular means of disseminating know-how
between projects was through individuals moving to
new projects (52.4%) or through written documentation
(39.7%). Just eight of 63 respondents claimed that post-
project review results were effectively used to improve
project management or were an integral part of inter-
project learning. 39.7% stated that their review focused
mostly on technical criteria, and just 6.3% found that
their companies applied sound and consistent criteria to
every post-project review. The complete questionnaire
and its results can be found in the Appendix.
Our survey confirms a benchmarking study of 79
highly regarded R&D organizations conducted by
Menke (1997) who stated that less than a quarter of
the 79 organizations made full use of post-project
reviews (see also Kumar, 1990). However, we are
aware of the limitations of our investigation due to the
restricted scope and sample of the survey. But even

with these considerations in mind we must conclude
from our survey that great learning potential is lost by
not taking formalized team learning seriously enough.
Among the 63 valid respondents, 59 indicated they
would prefer to see more post-project reviews to follow
up on completed R&D projects. This is no easy task, as
we will see from the following chapter.
4.2. Post-project reviews in industrial R&D
What post-project review practices have been estab-
lished in R&D-intensive companies, and have any of
them best-practice character? Considering the low
attention and time that R&D management devotes to
post-project reviews, and the multitude of difficulties
and obstacles faced in executing these reviews, we were
expecting that only a few companies would have
developed all-encompassing approaches that could
serve as leading examples for their peers.
We collected a number of examples that illustrate
how some companies have addressed specific problems
of post-project reviews. Hewlett-Packard (HP) is one of
the companies that has been heralded for its fairly
consistent and established implementation of post-
project reviews. Some of its business units do not only
have official project closure meetings but also ‘retro-
spective’ project meetings looking exclusively at the
development process and potential improvements. Their
main aim is to gather root causes for problems
witnessed during the project and then to make
recommendations on how such events can be avoided
in future projects. This effort is based on an HP-wide

project management initiative established in 1989 and
later reinforced in a 1993 HP project management
council. Since then, HP has been striving to develop
project management as a company-wide core compe-
tence. This strategic emphasis on project management
helped to accommodate post-project reviews despite the
additional administrative requirements. Special review
facilitators focus on coaching post-project review meet-
ings. Still, the frequency of post-project review varies
between business units. The need for reviews has not yet
trickled down into every R&D department, and the
quality and result of each post-review meeting depends
on the skills and talents of the review facilitator.
Most companies rely heavily on personal networks
to disseminate experiences from project management,
including all forms of personnel rotation, temporary
project assignments and core team hand-overs. Some
companies also establish central service centres within
their central R&D whose members are in effect human
Learning through post-project reviews
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 3, 2002 259
dissemination tools for project experience. Daimler-
Chrysler, for example, offers support and coaching
staff to its R&D project managers from its FTK=P
department. These coaches are not involved in the
technical work of the project but support the project
team in all questions concerning the project execution
and facilitation process. Depending on the size and
strategic importance of the projects, these coaches are

responsible for up to five projects and are able to
capture and re-apply their in-depth knowledge to
future assignments and fellow project members.
In order to retain and develop a cadre of highly
skilled global R&D project managers, Hoffmann-La
Roche’s Pharma Division instituted an ‘International
Project Management Department’, coordinating a
resource pool of about 50 project managers for all
R&D projects worldwide (see also Gassmann and
von Zedtwitz, 1998). The members of this ‘virtual’,
geographically decentralized department are also
assigned as managers to projects as part of a global
programme to ensure standards in quality and project
procedures. Upon completion of these projects, project
managers return to the virtual resource pool. Since
there are more projects in the pipeline than there are
potential project managers available, they are imme-
diately reassigned to new projects.
Since the director of this department reports
directly to the corporate board, the internal political
position of R&D project managers has been improved
recently. The director of the ‘International Project
Management Department’ is also on the International
Project Committee, which decides over the approxi-
mately 60 global R&D projects at Roche Pharma. The
directorassumesaroleasinterpreterorliaison
between project managers and top management, thus
representing the interests of international project
management at Roche. This virtual pool promotes
the project management idea. Experienced project

managers are dispersed around the world and wander
from project to project – no matter where the project
will be conducted. Roche thus manages to retain
much of the valuable procedural know-how to
conduct and lead international projects not only
inside the company, but also in a position where it
can be reapplied when needed.
Although top-management support is important in
recognizing the strategic significance of post-project
reviews, it is not always beneficial that top manage-
ment personally participates in them. Depending on
the company culture, the presence of research directors
might prevent open and frank discussions of experi-
enced problems. DaimlerChrysler, on the other hand,
classifies R&D projects into ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ projects
(depending on their budget and strategic importance);
‘A’ projects are reviewed in front of the CTO, ‘B’
projects with the relevant R&D director, etc. However,
the higher the hierarchical level of participants, the
more likely it is that the post-project review develops
into a marketing event rather than an analysis of the
finished project.
DaimlerChrysler introduced a new review proce-
dure in R&D in 1998, giving directions on the format
of Powerpoint slides as well as details on mandatory
information to be given. Agilent stresses the impor-
tance of cross-functional participants to enhance the
array of issues raised during the post-review (see also
the Unisys example above), underlining that ‘low-key’
events also help to achieve generally more honest

results than formal meetings. A similarly informal
approach is adopted by many software development
companies (e.g., SAP), although some of them regard
post-reviews as wild brainstorming sessions without
fixed agendas. Professional networks and clubs at
Dow Corning and DuPont also provide platforms for
informal know-how exchange of project management.
Sinofsky and Thomke (1999) have collected a number
of hands-on guidelines on how to conduct a post-
project review session. Again, the approach chosen
depends heavily on the existing company culture and
underlying motive for conducting post-project re-
views.
Some companies insist on maintaining the post-
review as a completely internal meeting with no
outsiders present. Others, for instance Novartis and
Hewlett-Packard, opt for external facilitators in order
to profit from the perspectives of an objective outsider
to the project. External facilitators may come from an
internal coaching or quality management department,
like at DaimlerChrysler FTP=K or Agilent, or hired
externally to do the job. These outside facilitators are
usually consultants specialized in process develop-
ment.
Obviously, post-project reviews take place after a
project is finished. The time span between project
closure and the post-review meeting, however, varies
considerably. Some companies choose to conduct post-
reviews immediately after the delivery of the last
project milestone when the memory is still fresh and

most project members still present. Other companies
prefer to wait until after market introduction, when
customer feedback can be taken into account as well.
Schindler, for example, waits approximately two years
after the actual product launch before conducting the
post-project review.
While all these examples show that current post-
project review practices in R&D are quite hetero-
geneous, it does not seem to be appropriate to impose
a single best practice of post-project reviewing.
Different objectives and needs, different markets
and industries, different cultural contexts, and differ-
ing degrees of innovation all influence the way post-
project reviews need to be conducted. But before we
propose a framework to develop better (rather than
best) review practices, we must understand some of
the underlying resistances to reflective learning for
future projects.
Maximilian von Zedtwitz
260
R&D Management 32, 3, 2002
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
5. Resistance to learning from post-project
reviews
If post-project reviews were simple, few companies
would pass up the chance for additional systematic
learning. However, a number of factors both at the
individual and the group level prevent the free flow of
information and the retention of critical project

knowledge for future use.
Based on research done by Ursula Koners at
Cranfield University (see also Koners and Zedtwitz,
2001, p. 128 –131), we identified eight major problem
factors, which we grouped in four areas as barriers to
learning from post-project reviews (Figure 4):
1. Psychological barriers;
2. Team-based shortcomings;
3. Epistemological constraints;
4. Managerial problems.
5.1. Psychological barriers
There is no organizational or team learning without
individuals creating and sharing information. All hu-
man beings are limited in their capacity to learn based
on their experiences. Our minds are programmed
through the process of evolution to a certain balance
of reflection and action. Given the complexities and
challenges of our lives, particularly under high pressures
in modern society, it seems understandable that our
commitment to reflection on the past – particularly with
no immediate benefits to oneself – is rather limited. This
mechanism is effective at the conscious as well as the
subconscious levels. Here we focus on two impediments
pertaining to post-project review management:
1. The disinclination of team members to objectively
reflect upon past actions and their consequences,
particularly their own actions;
2. The bias to remember easy-to-categorize incidents
and the tendency to repress ambivalent experiences.
5.1.1. Inability to reflect. The business life of today is

generally not based on reflections of the past. One
popular ‘excuse’ is based on the claim that past models
and experiences do not apply if circumstances change
(Kransdorff, 1996). Most often it is found that
managers have little awareness of past actions and
rationales. According to Busby (1999) the idea that
‘experience is a teacher in its own right’ is very
dominant. In other words, one should not be surprised
that people find it difficult to communicate about the
past since the past is not the objective of management.
Another reason for this inability to reflect is based
on the fact that traditional approaches to project
management do not treat learning and reflection as
central (Ayas, 1997); and consequently these activities
are not considered as a vital part of the project
management task. In R&D, blue-sky researchers are
the ones most likely to engage in learning and
reflection for its own sake, but they are in the minority
compared to product-oriented development engineers
and scientists working on problems in applied research.
Once learning and reflection become a means and not
an end of a process, they are more easily forgotten.
5.1.2. Memory bias and ambivalent experiences. Be-
sides the selectivity of reflection, man is confronted
with the selectivity of memory. Psychology and
psychoanalysis have made great advances in our
understanding of why the human mind remembers
certain things and forgets others. Several layers of
memory have been identified. Repression is commonly
considered to apply to unpleasant experiences, forcing

us to forget the actual incident that led to the
experience but leaving us with a mental imprint
influencing future behaviour.
What is the role of repression of group experiences?
Unpleasant experiences are not really forgotten and
are often very present. However, it is the ambivalent
experiences that – both at the individual and the group
level – become those memories that pose the greatest
Team-based
• Reluctance to blame
• Poor internal
communication
Difficult to generalize
Tacitness of process
knowledge
Epistemological
•
•
• Time constraints
• Bureaucratic
overhead
Managerial
Inability to reflect
Memory bias
Psychological
Barriers to
Learning from Post
Project Reviews
•
•

Figure 4. Four major barriers to learning from post-project reviews.
Learning through post-project reviews
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 3, 2002 261
threat to the comfort of people, and are hence
repressed unless they are (at least at the group level)
raised and discussed. Since our world is not black-and-
white, most of our experiences are ambivalent. If we
were not able to prioritize which experiences to discuss
and which to repress, we would spend all day debating
and interpreting our experiences and possibly stalling
any progress whatsoever. Repression is a natural way
of limiting everyday complexity.
Repression or selective memory in projects can
override potentially important and valuable information
for future use. Future project teams, creating a new team
spirit and a new moral understanding, may understand
this experience in a completely different perspective. It is
therefore important to analyse what repressions may
have taken place at the group level to carry over any
underlying experiences from a previous project.
5.2. Team-based shortcomings
While team members are put together to work hand-in-
hand towards the same common goal, they are often
poorly suited to stand up face-to-face and give each
other a piece of their mind. Frank feedback may hurt
and potentially affects the relationship between in-
dividuals for years: many people choose not to risk
their social networks for the sake of project quality.
At the same time, much neutral information is not

passed on because its importance is undervalued or its
perceived validity limited:
1. The reluctance of individual team members to
blame other team members or their direct superiors,
and to take accountability;
2. Poor team-internal communication and the failure
to share different interpretations of common
experiences.
5.2.1. Reluctance to blame. One explanation why
reviewing past projects does not always lead to a
successful learning experience is that it necessarily
involves looking back at problems and critical events
in the past. Although Gulliver (1987) established in his
in-depth case study of the BP organization that people
genuinely want to help the company grow more
profitable by reviewing past behaviours, reviews often
suffer from the reluctance to allocate blame and
criticism since they might uncover cynical or embar-
rassing events.
Unfortunately, this reluctance can be stronger than the
realization that the organization has a potential to learn
constructively from a project team’s experience (Krans-
dorff, 1996). In extreme cases, project members deflect
the blame away from themselves, citing unclear goals,
insensitive and unfair leaders, and ignorant clients
(Barry, 1991). By the same token, individuals are
unwilling to take accountability for failure, either because
failure may have a negative impact on their career record,
or because they are embarrassed to acknowledge failure
in front of others. Research in this area is difficult to

generalize beyond the particular case, and the degrees of
reluctance and accountability probably depend on
specific company culture and incentive systems.
5.2.2. Poor team-internal communication. Excellent
communication has always been held as critical for
effective R&D teams. Tushman (1979), Allen et al.
(1980), and Katz and Allen (1982) described how team-
internal communication affects the productivity of the
R&D function. Imai et al. (1985) or Dimanescu and
Dwenger (1996) are mentioned here, in lieu of
many others who underlined the importance of cross-
functional communication for new product develop-
ment teams. While this is a significant step forward, in
practice internal communication across functions and
groups is hindered by team-internal regrouping: Some
people get along better with each other, being able and
willing to share information more easily with some
than with others. In pathological situations, team-
internal factions intentionally hide critical information
in order to gain unfair advantage in performance
recognition or promotions. Teams separated by
physical distances have usually little opportunity to
meet in person; they are hence restricted to electronic
or written communication. Team members with
different technical, functional, or cultural backgrounds
do not share the same vocabulary or referential
context, which leads to misunderstanding and reduced
knowledge exchange. While there are great advantages
associated with the inclusion of people from different
backgrounds, locations, and cultures, team-internal

communication is certainly not enhanced.
5.3. Epistemological barriers
Even if human beings had the time and interest to fully
devote their attention to the reflection and analysis of
what happens around them, they would still find it
difficult to grasp the most important issues and draw
important conclusions for future behaviour all by
themselves. The human intellect is limited. At the same
time, certain kinds of experiences are inherently hard
to express and hence not easily shared with colleagues.
Group-based discussion on commonly shared experi-
ence may thus be the only way to bring forth
distributed key lessons for future project teams:
1. The difficulty of abstraction from single occur-
rences and events to formulate more general
recommendations;
2. The inherent difficulty of articulation of tacit
knowledge and the precise formulation of ambig-
uous assumptions and beliefs.
5.3.1 Difficulties in generalizing from specific projects.
Abstract knowledge may be the basis for competitive
Maximilian von Zedtwitz
262
R&D Management 32, 3, 2002
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
advantage if it is well embodied in an organization
(Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). Generalizing from
context specific project experiences is one of the main
hurdles and difficulties for post-project reviews in

general. The human mind is not made to abstract
experiences to a general level so that they can be
applied to a wide range of future projects. Further-
more, project results (no matter if they are positive or
negative) are often naively extrapolated in a simple
linear fashion. The reality, however, is much more
complex, so that the outcome of a project depends on a
whole variety of interlinked variables which again are
very difficult to generalize.
5.3.2. Tacitness of process knowledge. The nature of
process-related knowledge, experiences and insights
implies that they cannot be shared in the same way as
information stored in reports, databases or prototypes.
Polanyi (1966) refers to this phenomenon as ‘tacit
knowledge’ and describes the underlying problem of
organizations: ‘We know more than we can tell’.
Durrance (1998) draws from Polanyi, Takeuchi and
Senge’s work and claims that especially Western
cultures still prefer explicit knowledge, which is
quantifiable and definable. Despite increasing aware-
ness of the difference between tacit and explicit
knowledge, companies are still struggling to convert
tacit into explicit knowledge so that it can be shared by
the entire organization. Senge (1990) suggests reflec-
tion or careful observation – a task mainly found in
post-project reviews.
5.4. Managerial constraints
R&D is, like any other corporate function, under
constant performance pressure. This pressure leaves
little time to step back and reassess a project that has

occurred in the past. Furthermore, researchers are
known to shun guidelines and project management
rules imposed by a central department. These require-
ments are often interpreted as unnecessary and
obstructive to the actual R&D work. Hence we have:
1. Lack of time to deal with the past in a business that
typically looks three to five years ahead;
2. Reluctance to comply with bureaucratic and admin-
istrative requirements in association with following
up on post-project reviews.
5.4.1. Time constraints. The most often stated reason
why post-project reviews are not conducted is lack of
time. People are unlikely to devote time and effort to
yesterday’s problems since natural incentives favour
moving ahead to the next problem instead of spending
valuable time on reviewing a just completed project.
This has been verified by Kotnour (1999) who – based
on results from his questionnaire survey of 43
experienced project managers – states that ‘most
project managers viewed producing lessons learned as
a valuable and important exercise. However, they felt
they did not have enough time to complete a formal
lessons-learned process’.
Particularly in an economy more and more deter-
mined by Internet-speed competition, time will be
increasingly short. An R&D manager of a large IT
company declared that ‘if you have the time to think,
you’re doing something wrong’. When time is a critical
resource, retrospection and contemplation are left to
others.

5.4.2. Bureaucratic overhead. Corporate control sys-
tems tend to concentrate on budget, time and output.
Not surprisingly, if post-project reviews are conducted
at all, a substantial part of each review is devoted to
complying with these control demands. Particularly
when post-project reviews are considered as additional
bureaucratic chores imposed by a central project
management department, project teams rarely have
the necessary enthusiasm to engage in additional
review work. Moreover, the information requested
in a post-project review is often incompatible with
information solicited during the execution of the
project, and hence undermines the confidence of the
team in the entire control system.
As a consequence, the purpose of a post-project
review is often reduced to ensure that the project
complied with all bureaucratic procedures, and the
important inter-project learning function is neglected.
If learning is on the review agenda, it is often for the
benefit of the team members only. Kotnour (1999)
discovered that the learning goals of project managers
focus on costs, scheduling, performance and customer
satisfaction – in line with what most corporate
incentive systems favour. In combination with time
constraints, the disinclination of project teams to
comply with bureaucratic procedures tends to keep
the effort spent on post-project reviews to a mini-
mum.
6. A capability maturity-based model for
organizational learning through post-project

reviews in R&D
There is a growing body of evidence that projects may
prove immensely beneficial to the long-term success of
companies when these companies systematically in-
corporate reflective practices into their project man-
agement processes (DeFillippi, 2001, p. 6). In the two
previous chapters we have outlined why post-project
reviews have been difficult to conduct, and how
selected companies have found formalized ways and
means to gain insight from R&D projects despite these
obstacles.
Overall, we have not been able to find a single best
practice in post-project reviews in R&D. Individual
Learning through post-project reviews
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 3, 2002 263
approaches tend to be company-specific and optimized
to problems perceived to be most urgent by each
organization.
A number of methodologies for structured learning
from projects have been formulated to provide R&D
managers with practical guidelines (e.g. Collier, De-
Marco and Fearey, 1996; Barker and Neailey, 1999;
Kearth, 2000). If these methodologies were embraced
by R&D organizations, post-project reviews would be
conducted with greater consistency and greater applic-
ability of their outcomes to other R&D projects.
However, the introduction of a new reflective
process, which is typically not perceived to add value
to current business activities, is resisted unless the

organization has reached a level of maturity that is
receptive to company-wide knowledge sharing.
In the field of software engineering and develop-
ment, a capability maturity model (CMM) has been
proposed by the Software Engineering Institute to
describe the capabilities of software development
organizations and to provide guidance on how to
establish and improve software development processes
(see Carnegie-Mellon University, 1995). Analogous to
CMM, we propose a five-level capability maturity
model for post-project reviews. Our post-project
review maturity model is designed as a framework
allowing the progression from an immature unrepea-
table review process to a mature, well-managed review
process (see Figure 5).
The maturity model is organized into five levels:
Initial; Repeatable; Defined; Managed; Optimizing.
Each level is described in terms of key processes that
contribute to the degree of implementation and
institutionalization of the review processes in place.
6.1. Level 1: Initial
Organizations at this level of process maturity char-
acterize post-project reviews as ad hoc or even chaotic.
If a review process has been defined, then its success
depends heavily on the skills and talent of individuals
who conduct it. Reviews are seldom planned but
triggered rather in reaction to a major project-related
event, such as a complete failure or a particularly
successful project. Because the review process is poorly
defined and its execution not standardized, its outcome

is unpredictable and incomparable to other review
results.
Most organizations still appear to be at this level.
Our survey indicated that one in eight companies never
conducts post-project reviews, and that half of the
remaining companies use arbitrary or random selection
criteria to review projects. More than half of all
respondents stated that their companies have no post-
project review guidelines in place, and about a quarter
responded that the review quality was based mostly on
the capabilities of the team members.
6.2. Level 2: Repeatable
The organization has established post-project review
guidelines and sound review practices: the review
process is repeatable and comparable to previous
reviews. Managing and planning of new reviews is
based on experience with similar reviews, although
specific review practices may differ. With principal
review policies in place, major disasters in review
sessions or in review outcomes may be avoided.
A simple example of a repeatable review practice is a
post-completion report, which is usually based on a
report template to ensure inclusion of relevant project
improvement areas. Such written reports, however,
focus mostly on quantifiable and explicit data, such as
costs, scheduling and technical=design deviations.
Nevertheless they provide a good means for transfer-
able recommendations for corrective action, if these
suggestions are made available at the group or
management level.

Maturity of Post-Project Review Processes
Optimizing
Managed
Defined
Repeatable
Initial
• Ad hoc PPR
• Reaction-driven reviews
• Based on capabilities of project individuals
1
2
3
5
• Establishment of PPR policies
• Introduction of sound review practices
• Based on experience with similar reviews
• PPR process standardized
• Establishment of sound and consistent review criteria
• PPR responsibility assigned to a unit
• PPR goals quantified and measurable
• Corrective action can be taken
• Quality of transferable knowledge predictable
Post-Project Review Capabilities
4
• Organization-wide PPR
•
Consistent inter-project learning
•
Proactive review of PPR pro-
cesses

Figure 5. A capability maturity model of post-project review (PPR) processes.
Maximilian von Zedtwitz
264
R&D Management 32, 3, 2002
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
In our survey, about 40% of the respondents
indicated that their reviews focused mostly on techni-
cal issues. Again, about 40% stated that project know-
how is available for future R&D projects in written
form, and almost 20% replied that their reviews were
conducted based on earlier similar reviews. Many
organizations stop at this level because they believe
that they obtain the greatest learning for the invested
effort and time. These organizations ignore that good
reviews are those that produce learning for future
action, and not for database graveyards.
6.3. Level 3: Defined
In level 3 the review process is documented, standar-
dized, and integrated in the overall project manage-
ment process for both management and engineering
activities. Reviews are conducted according to con-
sistent and company-wide criteria; the review process is
both stable and repeatable. Major savings in cost and
time, as well as quality improvements are possible.
In order to achieve a repeatable and defined review
practice, team members must be trained in maintaining
and executing project activities that improve the post-
project review exercise at the end. Both the military
service and industrial research departments are used to

maintaining a logbook, recording important events
and results that might be useful for future corrective
action. A positive side effect is that logbooks also
help with getting new team members up to speed
quickly.
Training, maintenance and supervision of review
practices are usually assigned to a small unit or project
management department. This unit also ensures that
project teams are informed about review requirements
at the conclusion of their project. Only if teams are
aware of the information needs at the start of a project,
will they be able to objectively collect and present this
information for final evaluation. Project information
collected without system is usually of little value for
comparison with other projects; and a central unit
should ensure that consistent company-wide review
criteria are followed.
Less than 20% of the companies in our survey
sample used such a dedicated project management
unit, had post-project review guidelines available ‘upon
request’, or devoted a more substantial amount of
review time to analysis of project management
methods. 11% stated that their companies had sound
review practices in place that were known by all
employees, and just 6.3% had sound and consistent
review criteria applied to every project.
6.4. Level 4: Managed
The organization sets quantitative quality goals that
can be measured across different review outcomes.
Corrective action on the review process can be taken

based on process controls. Review results are collected
and made available company-wide. The quality of the
transferable knowledge is predictable and actionable.
Full quality management practices can be applied to
post-project review practices.
About 10% of the respondents in the survey
indicated that their reviews had quantified and
measurable goals; the same share stated that the
quality of the review results was independent from
the projects reviewed and the individuals involved.
12.7% used the results from post-project reviews to
improve future project management.
Moving to a level 4 organization means more than
just adopting a new set of review protocols. It means
that the organization accepts the occurrence of failure
as an almost natural phenomenon, but is prepared to
act on it and provide assistance to employees for
improving project performance. This view must be
supported with appropriate incentive structures. Hon-
da, for instance, presents a ‘Golden Cow’ award to
teams whose projects have failed yet have been able to
learn and pass on their experiences (still, the idea is
that you do not receive too many awards of this kind).
Without failure there is little learning: failure must
become an accepted part of innovation management.
6.5. Level 5: Optimizing
In this final level of process maturity, post-project
reviews are established organization-wide in order to
ensure consistent inter-project learning. Lessons
learned are disseminated to targeted project teams

elsewhere in the organization. The post-project review
itself is under repeated scrutiny for continuous
improvement based on quantitative and qualitative
feedback. Flaws in the review process are detected
early and proactive measures can be undertaken.
Achieving a level 5 process maturity is based on the
acceptance of a learning culture in the organization.
The post-project review practice itself is regularly
reviewed: project teams engage in double-loop learning
and contribute to improving the process per se.A
number of our interview partners claimed that their
organizations had reached this level, but after further
probing it was clear that either they were considering
only singular non-repeatable learning events from
post-project reviews, or that they had some but not
all practices of a truly optimizing process in place.
Our survey reflects this interpretation to some
extent. 9.5% of our respondents claim that review
processes were regularly reviewed and continuously
improved, and just 3.2% said that post-project reviews
were a consistent and integral part of inter-project
learning. Given our interview experience we think that
even these percentages may be optimistically high.
About 10% use external facilitators as review mod-
erators: a practice that is aimed at ensuring objectivity
and independence of interpretation.
Learning through post-project reviews
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 3, 2002 265
Last but not least, 14.3% of the survey participants

identify potential benefactors of the review outcome
and notify them of the results. Often, these targeted
individuals are invited to personally participate in the
post-project review. The US Army has instituted this
last practice under the acronym WESK: Who Else
Should Know, to make sure that key individuals and
teams know of the lessons learned elsewhere and can
act on them immediately.
This post-project review capability maturity model
could serve as a framework for assessing and improv-
ing review practices. It can also assist in defining,
modelling, and measuring the maturity of review
processes used in R&D organizations. This model
should provide a basis for identifying and commu-
nicating good practices and help eliminate bad ones.
As such, it can be a powerful tool to guide R&D-
intensive companies through their development and
evolution of inter-project learning capabilities.
In fact, the post-project review capability maturity
model has been used and tested with R&D managers of
different industries. So far, we have had positive
feedback on its applicability and power. Nevertheless,
in association with R&D managers from different
companies we are working on a refined description of
the model, including different industry and innovation
requirements, along with the specific key processes that
constitute each level.
7. Conclusions
Mistakes are only worthwhile making if you can learn
from the experience. In this contribution we have

underlined the importance of post-project reviews for
organizational learning, outlined some impediments to
conducting post-project reviews, and proposed a model
for assessing and improving post-project review
practices. We have given only limited practical advice
on how to conduct a review session, and how to face
many of the managerial and technical challenges in the
aftermath of a project: we refer here to the managerial
literature.
The great majority of projects appear not to be post-
reviewed at all, and there are good indications that
most post-project reviews are considered as a necessary
but not critical exercise. We want to emphasize that
post-project reviews should not be conducted for their
own sake. Any outcome of a post-project review must
be an input to a subsequent project – otherwise the
whole exercise is, in fact, wasted. Electronic review
documents in central data repositories and reports in
company-internal newsletters are outputs of but not
inputs to projects. Reviews must be conducted with
targets in mind. For instance, project managers of
selected upcoming projects should attend post-project
reviews as observers. Project management coaches who
assist in all process and post-project phases may act as
advisors across a multitude of subsequent project
teams. The key is that even the best post-project review
process is ineffective unless the outcome is enacted by
people.
The more complex projects become, the less we can
afford to start from square one in managing subsequent

projects, and the more systematic inter-project learning
becomes a tool for competitive advantage. Our research
continues to investigate post-project review processes
with the aim to improve inter-project learning. We focus
on similarities between review requirements across
different industries and different project types as well
as differences that help differentiate our model further
and hopefully lead to ‘successful practices’ for specific
settings. A solid post-project review practice will
ultimately be part of an organization-wide learning
initiative and thus must receive the support of top
management. After all, organized knowledge sharing is
at the basis of competence building and thus a source of
competitive advantage.
Appendix: The post-project review
questionnaire and summarized results
1a) In approx. how many R&D projects involving at
least two people have you participated in your
career? Avg.: 33 projects
1b) About how many of them were followed up by a
post-project review? Avg.: 19.4%
1c) Would you encourage your organization to conduct
*
more post-project reviews? 93.7%
*
fewer post-project reviews? 1.6%
*
the current amount is acceptable 4.8%
2) In your organization, which one of the following
statements applies?

*
Post-project reviews are conducted only
in R&D 16.4%
*
are conducted mainly in R&D 34.4%
*
are conducted in R&D as well as
other departments 34.4%
*
are not conducted in R&D but in
other departments 4.9%
*
are not conducted anywhere in my
organization 9.8%
3) In your R&D department, how often do you
conduct post-project reviews? (check one of the
following)
*
Never 12.7%
*
Ad-hoc after some projects 30.2%
*
Only after unsuccessful projects 11.1%
*
Only after successful projects 3.2%
*
After large projects or programs mostly 23.8%
*
After most projects 15.9%
*

After every project 3.2%
Maximilian von Zedtwitz
266 R&D Management 32, 3, 2002
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
4) How are post-project reviews managed in your
R&D department? (check all that apply)
*
There are no established post-project
review guidelines 55.6%
*
Post-project reviews are conducted by
external facilitators 9.5%
*
A department or unit has been assigned
with post-project review responsibility 4.8%
*
Post-project review guidelines are
‘available upon request’ 14.3%
*
Sound review practices have been
defined – everyone knows them 11.1%
*
Post-project reviews are conducted
based on similar earlier reviews 17.5%
*
The review process itself is reviewed
regularly and continuously improved 9.5%
5) How is the know-how from one project dissemi-
nated to other projects? (check all that apply)

*
Post-project reviews results are poorly
implemented in subsequent projects 17.5%
*
Know-how is passed on mainly through
individuals moving to new projects 52.4%
*
Project know-how is put down in writing
which is accessible for future projects 39.7%
*
As part of most post-project reviews, the
recipients of the review results are
identified and notified 14.3%
*
Post-project review results are effectively
used to improve project management 12.7%
*
Post-project reviews are a consistent and
integral part of inter-project learning 3.2%
6) What is the focus and quality of content of your
post-project reviews? (check all that apply)
*
Post-project reviews focus mostly on
technical issues 39.7%
*
The benefits of a post-project review
depends mainly on the capabilities of
all team members 28.6%
*
A large amount of review time is devoted

to analyzing project management 17.5%
*
Sound and consistent review criteria are
applied to every post-project review 6.3%
*
Post-project review goals have been
quantified and are measurable 9.5%
*
The quality of the review results is
independent from the projects reviewed
and the individuals involved 9.5%
Note: Rounding errors may occur. N = 63.
References
Allen, T.J., Lee, M.S. and Tushman, M.L. (1980) R&D
performance as a function of internal communication,
project management, and the nature of work. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-27, 1, 2–12.
Argyris, C. (1977) Double loop learning in organizations.
Harvard Business Review, September –October, 115–125.
Argyris, C. and Scho
¨
n, D.A. (1978) Organizational Learning.
London: Addison-Wesley.
Ayas, K. (1997) Design for learning and innovation. Long
Range Planning, 29, 6, 898– 906.
Ayas, K. and Zeniuk, N. (2001) Project-based learning:
building communities of reflective practitioners. Manage-
ment Learning, 32, 1, 61– 76.
Balanchandra, R. and Brockhoff, K. (1995) Are R&D
project termination factors universal? Research Technology

Management, 38, 4, 31– 36.
Barker, M. and Neailey, K. (1999) From individual learning
to team learning and innovation: a structured approach.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 11, 2, 60–67.
Barry, T. (1991) Letter to the editor. Harvard Business
Review, 91, 4, 165– 166.
Busby, J. (1999) An assessment of post-project reviews.
Project Management Journal, 30, 3, 23– 29.
Carnegie-Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute
(1995) The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for
Improving the Software Process (Principal Editors: Paulk,
M., Weber, C., Curtis, B. and Chrissis, M.). Addison-
Wesley: Reading MA.
Collier, B., DeMarco, T. and Fearey, P. (1996) A defined
process for project postmortem review. IEEE Software,
65– 72.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1991) New product
processes at leading industrial firms. Industrial Marketing
Management, 20, 137–147.
Crossan, M. and Guatto, T. (1995) The evolution of
organizational learning. Working paper series no. 95–07,
Western Business School.
Daudelin, M.W. (1996) Learning from experience through
reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 3, 36–49.
DeFillippi, R. (2001) Introduction: project-based learning,
reflective practices and learning outcomes. Management
Learning, 32, 1, 5–10.
Dimanescu, D. and Dwenger, K. (1996) World-Class New
Product Development. New York: Amacom.
Donnellon, A. (1993) Crossfunctional teams in product

development: accommodating the structure to the pro-
cess. Journal Product Innovation Management, 10, 377 –
392.
Drejer, A. and Riis, J.O. (1999) Competence development
and technology: how learning and technology can be
meaningfully integrated. Technovation, 19, 631–644.
Duffy, P. and Thomas, R. (1989) Project performance
auditing. Project Management, 7, 2, 101– 104.
Durrance, B. (1998) Some explicit thoughts on tacit learning.
Training & Development, 52, 12, 24.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D. (2000)
Organizational learning: debates past, present and future.
Journal of Management Studies, 27, 6, 783 –796.
EIRMA (1998) Project Management in R&D, Working
Group Report 53, Paris.
Fiol, C. and Lyles, M. (1985) Organizational learning.
Academy of Management, 10, 803–813.
Garvin, D.A. (1993) Building a learning organization.
Harvard Business Review, 71, 4, 78–91.
Gassmann, O. and von Zedtwitz, M. (1998) Organization of
Learning through post-project reviews
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 3, 2002 267
industrial R&D on a global scale. R&D Management, 28,
3, 147–161.
Gulliver, F. (1987) Post project appraisals pay. Harvard
Business Review, 87, 2, 128–132.
Gupta, A. (1998) Key drivers of reduced cycle time. Research
Technology Management, 41, 4, 38 –43.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. (1994) Competing for the Future.

Boston, HBS Press.
Huber, G. (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing
processes and literature. Organization Science, 2,1,88–
115.
Imai, K., Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1985) Managing the
new product development process: how Japanese compa-
nies learn and unlearn. Clark, K., Hayes, R. and Lorenz,
C. (eds), The Uneasy Alliance. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Johannessen, J A., Olsen, B. and Olaisen, J. (1997)
Organizing for innovation. Long Range Planning, 30,1,
96– 107.
Katz, R. and Allen, T.J. (1982) Investigating the not invented
here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure,
and communication patterns of 50 R&D-project groups.
R&D Management, 12, 1, 7–19.
Kearth, N. (2000) An Approach to Postmorta, Postparta and
Post Project Reviews. Elite Systems, P.O. Box 2205,
Beaverton, OR 97975.
Koners, U. and von Zedtwitz, M. (2001) Organizational
learning through post-project reviews in R&D. Davenport,
S., Davies, J., Butler, J., Pearson, A. and Ball, D. (Editors)
Leveraging Research & Technology. Proceedings of the
R&D Management Conference 2001, 124–135.
Kotnour, T. (1999) A learning framework for project
management. Project Management Journal, 30, 2, 32–38.
Kransdorff, A. (1996) Using the benefits of hindsight – the
role of post project analysis. The Learning Organisation,
3,1.
Kumar, K. (1990) Post implementation evaluation of

computer-based information systems: current practices.
Communications of ACM, 203 –212.
Menke, M. (1997) Managing R&D for competitive advan-
tage. Research Technology Management, 40, 6, 40–42.
Mumford, A. (1995) Four approaches to learning from
experience. Industrial and Commercial Training, 27,8,12–
19.
Neale, C. and Homes, D. (1990) Post-auditing capital
projects. Long Range Planning, 23, 4, 88– 96.
O’Connor, P. (1994) Implementing a stage-gate process: a
multi-company perspective. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 11, 183–200.
Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. London.
Projectnet (1999) Glossary, ,
(21.9.2000).
Reger, G. and von Wichert-Nick, D. (1997) A learning
organization for R&D management. International Journal
of Technology Management, Special Issue on R&D
Management, 13,7=8, 796–817.
Saladis, F. (1993) The project evaluation review process.
Proceedings of the Annual Seminar Symposium, Project
Management Institute, San Diego, October.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Sinofsky, S. and Thomke, S. (1999) Learning from Projects:
Note on Conducting a Postmortem Analysis. HBS 9– 600–
021. Boston: HBS Press.
Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I. (1986) The new new product
development game. Harvard Business Review, January=
February, 64, 137–146.
Tushman, M.L. (1979) Managing communication network in

R&D laboratories. Sloan Management Review, 4, 37–49.
Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992) Revolutionizing
Product Development – Quantum Leaps in Speed, Effi-
ciency, and Quality. New York: The Free Press.
Wideman, R. (1992) Risk Management Handbook. Newton
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Yin, R.K. (1991) Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
New Delphi: Newbury Park, London.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ursula Koners,
doctoral candidate at Cranfield University, for her
insightful and valuable contributions in this research
leading to an earlier version of this paper, most notably
represented here in sections 3.1, 3.2, and 5, and Jean-
Philippe Deschamps of IMD for his cooperation and
support in the conducting and surveys on R&D post-
project review practice.
Note
1. Reflection is not synonymous with learning, but it is an
important precondition. ‘Reflection is the process of
stepping back from an experience to ponder, carefully
and persistently, its meaning to the self through the
development of inferences; learning, on the other hand, is
the creation of meaning from past or current events that
serves as a guide for future behavior’ (Daudelin, 1996).
Maximilian von Zedtwitz
268
R&D Management 32, 3, 2002
#
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002