Difference between revisions of "After Action Review"
From Learning and training wiki
Chantal joly (Talk | contribs) |
Ivana.dutli (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{Term|AFTER ACTION REVIEW (AAR)|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|good practices]]) and failures ([[Lessons Learned|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.<ref> [http://www.library.nhs.uk www.library.nhs.uk](14 April 2008), [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] (14 April 2008), [http://www.au.af.mil www.au.af.mil] (14 April 2008) </ref> See also: [[Action Review]] }} | + | {{Term|AFTER ACTION REVIEW (AAR)|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|good practices]]) and failures ([[Lessons Learned|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.<ref> [http://www.library.nhs.uk www.library.nhs.uk](14 April 2008), [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] (14 April 2008), [http://www.au.af.mil www.au.af.mil] (14 April 2008) </ref> See also: [[Action Review]] }} |
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*'''Organize the meeting right after the event'''. After Action Reviews should be conducted as soon as possible after the event took place, in order to have fresh memories of it, so that learning can be applied immediately. | *'''Organize the meeting right after the event'''. After Action Reviews should be conducted as soon as possible after the event took place, in order to have fresh memories of it, so that learning can be applied immediately. | ||
*'''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 | + | *'''Recruit a facilitator'''. Ideally, the facilitator should be someone who has not taken part in the project so that he/she can remain objective. |
*'''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. | *'''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. | ||
Revision as of 14:44, 7 June 2010
AFTER ACTION REVIEW (AAR) |
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, 2006