Difference between revisions of "After Action Review"
From Learning and training wiki
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*'''Analizing what happened and what was supposed to happen''': Ask ‘what did we set out to do?’ and ‘what did we actually achieve?’. It could be useful to revisit the original plan. This can help to identify the part of the project that were effective and the ones that were not. | *'''Analizing what happened and what was supposed to happen''': Ask ‘what did we set out to do?’ and ‘what did we actually achieve?’. It could be useful to revisit the original plan. This can help to identify the part of the project that were effective and the ones that were not. | ||
− | *'''Analizing the success obteined''': ‘Ask what went well? ’ Here you are looking to build on [[ | + | *'''Analizing the success obteined''': ‘Ask what went well? ’ Here you are looking to build on [[Good Practices]] as well as learning from mistakes. For each point that is made about what went well, keep asking a ‘why?’ question. |
*'''Analizing what should be improved''': Ask ‘What could have gone better?’. The focus is not on failures but on imporvements. Even if no mistakes are made as such there is almost always scope for improvement. Try to ask to participant about things that should be done differently next time. | *'''Analizing what should be improved''': Ask ‘What could have gone better?’. The focus is not on failures but on imporvements. Even if no mistakes are made as such there is almost always scope for improvement. Try to ask to participant about things that should be done differently next time. | ||
*'''Ensuring that everyone feels fully heard before leaving the meeting ''': It is important that participants do not leave the meeting feeling that they have not been heard or that things have been left unsaid. | *'''Ensuring that everyone feels fully heard before leaving the meeting ''': It is important that participants do not leave the meeting feeling that they have not been heard or that things have been left unsaid. |
Revision as of 14:41, 29 August 2008
AFTER ACTION REVIEW |
Briefing or analysis following the completion of an activity to allow employees and leaders to see whether anything could have or should have been done differently. It is a process developed to help teams to learn quickly from their successes (good practices) and failures (lessons learned) and share their learning with other teams and it should be performed after each identifiable event or milestone, and becomes a live learning process to help support learning organizations. It involves conducting a professional structured and facilitated discussion after a task or project has been completed to review what should have happened, what actually happened and why it happened; this allows participants to learn how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses in subsequent tasks or projects.[1] See also: Action Review |
Orginizing an After Action Review |
StepsBefore
During
Facilitator's RoleThe facilitator plays three main roles which are the follows:
Leadership role
Neutral role
Print the Document |
References
- ↑ www.library.nhs.uk(14 April 2008), Wikipedia (14 April 2008), www.au.af.mil (14 April 2008)
- ↑ http://www.library.nhs.uk (14 August 2008) , www.mindtools.com (28 August 2008), www.daretoshare.com (28 August 2008), www.work911.com (28 August 2008)