Transferring only the "Top 3" or "Top 10" lessons creates an arbitrary and unnecessary limit on learning.
It puzzles me why they chose 10 lessons. This was a multi billion dollar project, and I bet they learned more than 10 things. So why restrict it to 10? Why not 12? What if there were 15 lessons - would we not record numbers 11 through 15?
Imagine I had been through a powerful learning experience, and learned many things. Imagine you came to me and asked me to share what I knew, and I said "I learned about 20 things, but I am only prepared to share 10 of them with you". Would not not be a little annoyed? Especially if you ended up making repeat mistakes in areas 11 through 20?
Perhaps people limit investigation to the Top 10 to avoid overloading the organisation.
This may be a worthy aim, but no organisation I know of is overloaded by learning. Generally there is a dearth of good knowledge available, and people are very pleased to receive good helpful material.
I can understand restricting to 10 lessons if the lessons are turgid and boring and not very helpful, but that can’t be our aim, surely? I blogged a while ago about the project which generated 700 lessons, of which 400 were reused, resulting in savings of tens of millions of dollars. What would have happened if they had restricted themselves to 10? 390 opportunities for learning and improvement would never have been re-used, and 97.5% of the value would have been lost.
Perhaps people limit investigation to the Top 10 to avoid overloading themselves.
Perhaps they think that documenting lessons is not really worth doing and that it would a lot of effort, so lets high grade only the most important lessons. This may be a more likely scenario. But I think that's an unhelpful attitude. Why not identify all the valuable and reusable learning points, whether it's 9, 15, 19, 29? Why not document them all?
Why stop at 10?