Learning Architecture vs
Training Programs
Training programs develop individual capability. Institutional Learning Architecture asks: why don't institutions learn from their own experience?
What Training Programs Got Right
Training programs address a real need: people need to develop skills and knowledge to perform their roles. Organizations invest billions in training because individual capability genuinely matters.
ILA doesn't argue against training—it identifies a different problem entirely. Training develops people; ILA develops systems. Both are necessary.
The Problem ILA Addresses
Why do institutions keep making the same mistakes despite lessons learned programs?
Training Programs
Focus on developing individual capability through courses, workshops, and certifications. Learning lives in people's heads.
Learning Architecture (ILA)
Treats anti-learning as the default. Designs structural capacity for institutions to incorporate lessons into changed behavior.
Anti-Learning Is the Default
Institutions don't fail to learn because they lack training—they fail because nothing in their structure converts lessons into changed behavior.
The Learning Fragility Cycle
Lesson Identified
Post-mortem reveals what went wrong.
Lesson Documented
Report written, recommendations made.
Lesson Filed
Document goes into repository, rarely accessed.
Same Mistake Recurs
3-5 years later, same failure mode appears with different people.
The ILA Solution: Learning Authority
ILA introduces Learning Authority as a structural role—not a person, but a governance capacity with explicit permission to convert lessons into structural changes.
- •Authority to alter processes, not just document failures
- •Protected from political override
- •Measured by behavior change, not report production
How They Compare in Practice
Post-Incident Review
Lessons learned documented, filed, forgotten; same incident recurs in 3 years
Learning Authority empowered to alter systems; structural changes prevent recurrence
Leadership Transition
New leader brings new priorities; previous learning abandoned
Learning persists in structure; new leader works within learning architecture
Expert Departure
Knowledge leaves with the expert; capability gap emerges
Knowledge encoded in processes and systems; capability persists
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Training Programs | Learning Architecture |
|---|---|---|
| Learning Location | Individual capability | Structural capacity |
| Persistence | Walks out with people | Embedded in governance |
| Default Mode | Assumes learning happens | Assumes anti-learning is default |
| Failure Response | More training | Fix structural barriers |
| Measurement | Training hours, certifications | Behavior change, adaptation rate |
| Cost | Lower setup, higher ongoing | Higher setup, lower ongoing |
Explore Institutional Learning Architecture
Learn how to design learning that persists across leadership changes.