After Action Reviews

From Regional Knowledge Resource Kit

Background

One very powerful learning tool is the After Action Review. An After Action Review or AAR as it more conveniently called is a simple process for improving learning on a daily basis. It originated in the US Army and has been widely evangelised by Edward Gutherie of Values International.

Facilitation level

The level of facilitation skills required to lead this technique is basic. A facilitator is appointed to help create an open environment, promote discussion and draw out lessons learned.

Objectives

After Action Reviews are great for helping a group of people who will work together in the future learn from their experience. It provides time and a forum for reflection, the creation of new stories and to develop a common understanding among peers on who to do things better next time.

Materials

• You may wish to use a learning journal or other methods for recording your learnings.

Time

AARs can be powerful processes because of their simplicity. AARs can be conducted almost anywhere and will vary in length. For example, a 15 minute AAR can be conducted after a one-day workshop or a much longer meeting could be held to reflect on the roll-out of a software application throughout a large organization.

Directions

Creating the right environment is critical. Participants unfamiliar with the AAR process should be given information on what it is all about and why it is being done. Particular emphasis should be made that AARs are used to promote learning and make it explicit rather than on seeking out individuals to blame for past failures.

Participants of an AAR should include all members of the team and should be carried out immediately while the team is still available and memories are fresh. It is recommended that AARs be incorporated at key points during a project, activity, event or task in the early planning stage though they are often completed at the end.

Asking the right questions

There are different ways to conduct AARs. Facilitators and groups are encouraged to experiment with the process and find the right questions that will work best with their group and the project, activity, event or task that is being reviewed. They should also attempt to keep the process as simple as possible. As a guideline, the following three sets of questions are suggested:

1. What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why were there differences?
2. What worked? What didn’t? Why?
3. What would you do differently next time?

It is recommended that the facilitator posts the sets of questions on a flipchart or whiteboard to be briefly reviewed prior to seeking out the answers.

What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why were there differences?

These questions are intended to create a shared understanding within the group on what were the initial objectives of the project, activity, event or task and whether they were achieved as planned. It is the role of the facilitator to encourage and promote discussion around these questions.

Differences between reality and planned should be highlighted and insights into why there were differences should be further explored.

What worked? What didn’t? Why?

This set of questions focuses on generating conversation about what worked and didn’t work during the course of the project, activity, event or task.

First, the facilitator asks the team members what aspects of the project, activity, event or task worked for them. Additional probing questions could include - “What did they like?” or “What are things that would be worthwhile repeating?” The facilitator should repeatedly follow up the team members’ responses with the question “Why?” to help generate a better understanding of the root causes of the successes.

The facilitator then asks the team members what aspects of the project, activity, event or task didn’t go so well or “What were aspects that they didn’t like”. Again, the facilitator should use the “Why?” question to identify the root reasons or explanations as to why things didn’t go so well.

What would you do differently next time?

This question is intended to help identify Specific Actionable Recommendations (SARs). The facilitator asks the team members for crisp and clear, achievable and future-oriented recommendations.

The facilitator should arrange in advance, for an individual to capture the quotes connected to each SAR. They supplement the SAR and can be included in the documentation of the AAR.

Debriefing

Variations

• The question could also be asked as “If you could do this all over again, what would you do differently”.

• Ask each individual to write down their response to the question “What mark out of 10 would you give this project, activity, event or task?”. Once everyone has written down their response, get each individual to tell the team their mark and then respond to the follow-up question “What would make it a 10?”.

Tips

• The facilitator can ask the project manager or team leader to summarize the objectives which are already posted on a flipchart or whiteboard. Others are then asked to add their comments and other objectives if omitted.

• If suggestions are not forthcoming, the facilitator could go around the room asking each individual to express one thing that worked and one thing that didn’t. Alternatively, if the participants have difficultly being open, you can also start with writing down comments on ‘stickies’ and discuss them in the group afterwards.

• Listen to a short podcast explaining the AAR process.

Writing Up SARs

The following provides an example of two ways to write-up a SAR from an AAR conducted following the deployment of a new software application across an organization:

• Poor SAR: More time is needed to better understand the application.
• Better SAR: Purchase support documentation for the application as soon as possible preferably once the selection has been made.

  “If we could get our hands on the support documentation earlier in the deployment, we could provide better training” - Gilles

Applications

AARs can be adapted to any number of situations and can be conducted during or after a team undertakes any type of activity or project. For example, the technique can be used to review a one-day workshop or a much longer meeting could be held to reflect on the roll-out of a software application throughout a large organization.

Stories (case studies)

The "Dare to Share" Knowledge Management Toolkit includes a section on After Action Reviews.