Difference between revisions of "After Action Review"
From Learning and training wiki
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Build a climate of trust'''. The ideal climate for an After Action Review is one of trust, openness and commitment to learning. AARs are learning events, not critiques, and so should not be treated as performance evaluation. During AAR hierarchy should be excluded, so that junior members can feel free to comment the seniors’ actions. | *'''Build a climate of trust'''. The ideal climate for an After Action Review is one of trust, openness and commitment to learning. AARs are learning events, not critiques, and so should not be treated as performance evaluation. During AAR hierarchy should be excluded, so that junior members can feel free to comment the seniors’ actions. | ||
*'''Recruit a facilitator'''. Ideally the facilitator should by someone who has not taken part in the project so that he/she can remain objective. | *'''Recruit a facilitator'''. Ideally the facilitator should by someone who has not taken part in the project so that he/she can remain objective. | ||
− | *'''Post the questions on | + | *'''Post the questions on flipchart sheets'''. It can be useful for the audience, while the sessions goes on, to be able to see the answers other people give to that and other questions. |
'''During the Meeting''' | '''During the Meeting''' | ||
− | *'''Analyze what happened and what was supposed to happen'''. It could be useful to revisit the original plan. This can help to identify the | + | *'''Analyze what happened and what was supposed to happen'''. It could be useful to revisit the original plan. This can help to identify the parts of the project that were effective and the ones that were not. Ask ‘what did we set out to do?’ and ‘what did we actually achieve?’. |
*'''Analyze the success obtained'''. ‘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. | *'''Analyze the success obtained'''. ‘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. | ||
*'''Analyze what should be improved'''. Ask ‘What could have gone better?’. The focus is not on failures but on improvements. Even if no mistakes have been made as such there is almost always scope for improvement. Try to ask participants about things that should be done differently next time. | *'''Analyze what should be improved'''. Ask ‘What could have gone better?’. The focus is not on failures but on improvements. Even if no mistakes have been made as such there is almost always scope for improvement. Try to ask participants about things that should be done differently next time. | ||
*'''Ensure 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. | *'''Ensure 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. | ||
− | *'''Appoint the answers''' participants give on the | + | *'''Appoint the answers''' participants give on the flipchart sheet. The completed sheet can serve as a reminder of the progress. |
*'''Record the meeting'''. It is important to have a clear and interesting account of the After Action Review and its learning points, both as a reminder to those involved, and in order to effectively share that learning with others. | *'''Record the meeting'''. It is important to have a clear and interesting account of the After Action Review and its learning points, both as a reminder to those involved, and in order to effectively share that learning with others. | ||
Revision as of 14:14, 1 October 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. It should be performed after each identifiable event or milestone and become a live learning process. 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 |
Organizing an After Action Review |
Step by StepBefore the Meeting
During the Meeting
After the Meeting
Facilitator's RoleThe facilitator plays three main roles: Leadership role
Referee role
Neutral role
Job AidOrganizing an After Action Review
|
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), Ramalingam, B., Tools for Knowledge and Learning, odi