Difference between revisions of "After Action Review"
From Learning and training wiki
Ivana.dutli (Talk | contribs) |
Ivana.dutli (Talk | contribs) |
||
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 be someone who has not taken part in the project so that he/she can remain objective. | *'''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, | + | *'''Post the questions on flipchart sheets'''. It can be useful for the audience, during the session, to be able to see the answers other people give to that and other questions. |
'''During the Meeting''' | '''During the Meeting''' | ||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
'''Leadership role''' | '''Leadership role''' | ||
− | *To focus on providing directions to the group *To stimulate and encourage constructive debate between group members | + | *To focus on providing directions to the group |
+ | *To stimulate and encourage constructive debate between group members | ||
*To support members of the group, helping them to bring information, and to build new ideas | *To support members of the group, helping them to bring information, and to build new ideas | ||
*To participate when the group is interacting poorly or in the wrong direction, by promoting new discussion | *To participate when the group is interacting poorly or in the wrong direction, by promoting new discussion |
Revision as of 15:18, 15 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