This may not be the first time we hear that innovation is closely linked to learning, but what is a learning process? Besides, why is it important that we know what it is? 

Before we address this question, I would like to visualize one of the ways in which people and organizations learn. There are many different proposals about what this process means, but for this purpose I will reference the work of Chris Argyris (1977). This avid learning expert proposed a simple model that can be explained through comparing an established goal to an achieved goal. What I mean by this is that a group of people will work to achieve a specific goal. At some point they will have to compare the result they've obtained having a set goal and, in case there is a difference between these two, they will have to make corrections to their operation. This process of adjusting activities to get closer to a set goal is referred to as “simple cycle learning” by the author. 

Now, it could be the case that the team discovers that the goal they’ve established is no longer realistic, maybe because the team’s performance has easily overshot the goal, because conditions have changed or simply because the goal was not properly defined and it has to be improved. After this, a change in the goal, policy or criteria is proposed. This change is even more powerful and is known as “double cycle learning”. Generally, the double cycle takes place when several simple cycles have occurred, which means that a group of people will learn through simple cycles till one of these becomes a double cycle, bringing with it a positive change for the organization. 

This learning process has many challenges, with three important ones to highlight. The first challenge is that, to be able to learn through a simple cycle, you need to draw comparisons between the goal and the achievement and accept the result, which may not always be desirable. In fact, it could often be negative. Each comparison provides an opportunity to learn and adjust as long as we are willing to accept the gap between goal and achievement. In other words, when we don’t achieve what we expect, we learn, as long as we accept the differences and learn our lessons. The problem with this is simple: nobody likes to fail nor to examine their failures. What is the lesson? for simple cycle learning to be effective, we need to examine the gaps between achieving a set goal and the necessary actions to close them. 

The second challenge happens in the double cycle. A team might realize that their set goal is no longer viable, either because it is too easily reached and thus requires improvement to pose a challenge to performance, or because the criteria under which it was established are incorrect. From this, the team proposes an adjustment in the goal and a revision to the criteria. Many organizations work under a hierarchical structure where criteria to measure performance are established by management or middleman positions who are often not involved in the day to day inner workings of the organization or working teams. It is not strange then to see that a person in a managerial position that has established performance evaluation criteria but has not worked with the teams under these criteria that have detected the need for change, will be hesitant to change it. The problem here is easy to explain but not to solve. Criteria are typically established by people that do not participate in the learning process, which is why they may resist adjustment and impede double cycle learning. 

The third challenge to learning is related to both cycles and is fairly simple: if you do not quantify what you do and do not record the results, it will be difficult to have a reference point from which to learn. 

Now then, what does all this have to do with innovation? 

Through the innovation process we are constantly going through simple and double cycle learning processes even without realizing. As we learn, we improve the state of our proposed solution. This becomes more noticeable when, for example, we are validating a prototype with its intended users. Once we present the idea for the solution and explain how it works, we question, observe and record the potential customer or user’s reaction. Almost certainly there will be positive observations and reactions that will make us feel good and that we are very happy to record, but what happens when we get negative reactions or comments that tell us that we have not been able to satisfy any need? it is expected that we would feel disappointed or even assume the customer is in the wrong, that they do not understand the idea or that they just might not be a potential customer. Nobody likes to be told their idea is not good. 

It is tempting to reject or discredit this valuable information that, from a simple cycle perspective, is actually a gap that will teach us something and allow us to take it to the next level. What we should do is record the gap, take the lessons learned and set out to improve our prototype. These changes to an idea born from a validation process are called simple pivots. Simple pivoting is very important because it allows the team to learn and improve on its products and activities. 

Now It is possible that, after a number of validation processes or interviews and pivoting on an idea, results will still not change in a desirable way. It may seem that nothing we do is enough to satisfy a necessity and nothing is going according to plan. This is the time to stop for a moment and go through our criteria for validation and ask ourselves: are we interviewing the correct user base? Is the necessity identified something our user base truly has? Is our place of choice truly representative of the context of our necessity? These questions could be very concerning for an inexperienced innovator because they imply a setback to a previous step in the innovation process. In truth, this step back is normal and often necessary because it is leading us to a double cycle learning process in which we will have to revise the criteria for the previous or current stage of the process that determine the measure of the success of our solution. These kinds or changes are called double pivoting. Double pivoting is incredibly powerful because it will help the team improve the innovation process itself. 

An innovation process will always carry with it constant simple and double pivoting processes. As an innovation team validates their knowledge of the problem and possible solutions, they learn and improve their proposals. Moreover, they are often required to take a step back and revise their criteria under which they are covering a necessity, even go so far as to revise their methodology, tools and strategies and improve upon them if necessary.