Difference between revisions of "After action review"

From NKM WIKIDOC
Jump to: navigation, search
(Description)
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Process-tool article formats]]
+
<!--
{{Complete}}
+
{{Tidy3}}
{{JohnD}},
+
{{Consolidation stage}}
+
==Definition==
+
{{PAGENAME}} is {{ {{PAGENAME}} }}
+
== Summary==
+
The after action review is a simple process used by a team to capture the [[Lessons learned|lessons learned]] from past successes and failures with the goal of improving future performance. It is an opportunity for a team to [[Learning through reflection|reflect]] on a project, activity, event or task so that the next time, they can do better. The review will not only make learning conscious within a team but it can also help build trust amongst the team’s members. Intended audience and required skill for delivery. Participants of an after action review should include all members of the team. A competent and neutral facilitator should be appointed to help create an open environment, promote discussion and draw out lessons learned.
+
==Description==
+
===Purpose===
+
To reflect on a recent activity and to learn lessons that will guide future actions.
+
===Beneficiaries and other stakeholders===
+
All [[Team learning|teams]], [[Project learning|projects]] and [[Communities of practice|communities of practice]].
+
===Skill requirements===
+
A little facilitation experience is needed to ensure participants stick to the script and do not leap to conclusions before the steps have been concluded. These skills are easily learned through experience.
+
===Instructions===
+
Asking the right questions: There are different ways to conduct after action reviews. 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 questions are suggested:
+
# What was supposed to happen?
+
# What actually happened?
+
# Why were there differences?
+
# What have we learned?
+
  
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.
+
{{JohnD}}
  
:'''1. What was supposed to happen?'''
+
{{Consolidation stage}}
:
+
-->
:This question is intended to create a shared understanding within the group on the initial objectives of the project, activity, event or task.
+
:Tip: The facilitator can ask the project manager or team leader to summarise the objectives which are already posted on a flipchart or whiteboard. Others are then asked to add their comments and other objectives if omitted.
+
:
+
:'''2. What actually happened?'''
+
:
+
:Differences between reality and planned should be highlighted.
+
:
+
:'''3. Why were there differences?'''
+
:
+
:Insights into why there were differences should be further explored.
+
:
+
:'''4. What have we learned?'''
+
:
+
:Now that the context and the analysis is complete, the group can captures lessons and propose actions to replicate success or make improvements.
+
:
+
  
===Examples===
+
==Definition==
 +
{{ {{PAGENAME}} }}
  
  
===Critical success factors===
+
==Purpose and benefits==
# Facilitation skills;
+
# Environment of trust;
+
# Genuine interest in improvements based on collective experience;
+
# Time to sit down and reflect.
+
  
===Hints and tips===
+
The after action review is a simple process used by a team to capture the [[Lessons learned|lessons learned]] from past successes and failures with the goal of improving future performance. It is an opportunity for a team to [[Learning through reflection|reflect]] on a project, activity, event or task so that the next time, they can do better. The review will not only make learning conscious within a team but it can also help build trust amongst the team’s members. Intended audience and required skill for delivery. Participants of an after action review should include all members of the team. A competent and neutral facilitator should be appointed to help create an open environment, promote discussion and draw out lessons learned.
===FAQ===
+
=====What is an after action review?=====
+
The after action review is a simple process used by a team to capture the [[Lessons learned|lessons learned]] from past successes and failures with the goal of improving future performance. It is an opportunity for a team to reflect on a project, activity, event or task so that the next time, they can do better.
+
=====Why do an after action review?=====
+
The after action review will not only make [[Learning|learning]] conscious within a team but it can also help build trust amongst the team’s members.
+
When do you conduct an after action review?
+
after action reviews should be carried out immediately while the team is still available and memories are fresh. It is recommended that after action reviews should 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.
+
=====How long should an after action review take?=====
+
after action reviews can be powerful processes because of their simplicity. after action reviews can be conducted almost anywhere and will vary in length. For example, a 15 minute after action review 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.
+
=====How do you conduct an after action review?=====
+
Creating the right environment is critical. Participants unfamiliar with the after action review process should be given information on what it is all about and why it is being done. Particular emphasis should be made that after action reviews are used to promote learning and make it explicit rather than on seeking out individuals to blame for past failures.
+
=====What is my role?=====
+
Participate and be open and frank and share your thoughts.
+
=====Who else will be there?=====
+
Typically all involved in the action being reviewed are invited to have the broadest perspective on what happened and to be able to draw on the collective intelligence of the group to move forward.
+
=====What will happen with the results?=====
+
Firstly, the results are meant for the participants. If there is a need to share more widely, it will be agreed with the group to disperse the results.
+
  
===Templates===
+
After action review allows participants to learn how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses in subsequent tasks or projects. It is used to help teams to learn quickly from their successes and failures and share their learning with other teams.
# After action review handout;
+
# After action review flipchart;
+
# After action review sample report.
+
  
===Other related documents===
+
== Description ==
===Training materials===
+
  
==Case studies==
+
AARs identify and capture the things that went well and the things that could be improved so that team or work group members are aware of and can use the broader team/group's learning in their future projects or work activities. Results can also be shared with future teams or other work groups so they can learn from the experiences of others. AARs are excellent for making tacit knowledge explicit during the life of a project or activity. AARs are a useful tool for developing employees by providing constructive, directly actionable feedback in a non-threatening way. They give employees an opportunity to share their views and ideas.  
====After action reviews at work in an organisation – A Case Study:====
+
Several staff at the Information Technology and Management Division (ITMD) at the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) were interviewed to share their thoughts and recommendations on the after action review process. Included below are some of their comments.
+
  
'''Terry'''
+
#Pre-requisites:
 +
The sessions should be done as soon as possible after the completion of the project task or activityies. They could also be done at any strategic point during a project. AARs  simply need to have a beginning and an end, an identifiable purpose and some basis on which actions can be assessed. A competent and neutral facilitator should be appointed to help create an open environment, promote discussion and draw out lessons learned.
 +
#The AAR process:
 +
##When planning and preparing for the AAR session, please consider the following:
 +
##*  Schedule the AAR
 +
##*  Select a facilitator
 +
##*  Notify participants
 +
##*  Select and prepare the AAR site/location
 +
##*  Assemble AAR materials
 +
##*  Establish the AAR agenda or discussion flow
 +
##When conducting, please consider the following:
 +
##*  Seek maximum participation
 +
##*  Maintain focus on AAR objectives
 +
##*  Review key points learned
 +
##*  Record the AAR
 +
#Follow-up:
 +
Results can also be shared with future teams or other work groups so they can learn from the experiences of others through an easily accessible location/resource (e.g. shared space, portal, corporate project management system, blogs, corporate wiki) .
 +
Well documented results of an after  action review session can be incorporated into a critical incident review system and incorporated into the corrective actions schema (often adopted by NPPs, less common for nuclear R&D organizations)
  
Terry Gavin, Director of ITMD was first exposed to the after action review process at IDRC when he took part in an IDRC strategic planning exercise. He became really excited about the process particularly because of the way that the team was able to get a sense of what worked, what didn’t work and what could be done differently in a very short period of time. He was so impressed by the process that he decided that it would be worthwhile to try it out on some of ITMD’s projects. He expected to get a collection of things that his team could apply to future projects such as mistakes that would not made again as well as things that worked well which could be done again. So far, the after action review has lived up to Terry’s expectations. Terry was surprised about how easy it was to get others interested and involved in the after action review process.  
+
==Variations==
 +
An action review is commonly conducted after a task or activity is completed. However in some cases an intermediate action review can be undertaken. The main principles applied are still the same.
 +
There are three types of AARs. Although the fundamentals are similar and depending upon the event, an AAR can be Formal, Informal or Personal. All involve the exchange of observations and ideas. Both Formal and Informal AARs should be appropriately documented so lessons learned may be shared across functional and geographic boundaries, and so that implementation of improvements can be measured.
 +
* Formal AAR:  A formal AAR is more structured, requires planning and takes longer to conduct. The formal AAR usually occurs immediately or soon after an event is completed. It may also occur while the event is in-progress. A neutral third party should facilitate a formal AAR.  
 +
* Informal AAR:  Informal AARs are less structured, require much less preparation and planning and can be conducted anywhere, anytime, for any event, by anyone. Examples: following a meeting or conference call; or as part of a safety briefing. Managers or other interested parties may facilitate their own informal AARs.
  
“People seem to like them and have stuck with them.
+
==Implementation guide==
I was amazed to see a project plan from one of our technical staff include,
+
as a final item on the plan, an after action review” – Terry
+
  
 +
There are no universal rules on how AARs should be undertaken, as many organizations develop their specific formants and level of formalization or involvement. 
 +
What makes AARs so powerful is that they can be applied across a wide spectrum of events from two individuals conducting a 5-minute AAR at the end of a short meeting to a longer AAR held by a team at the end of a large project. Individuals involved may absorb lessons learned on the spot and they can be documented in a format that can be shared with a wider audience. A properly conducted AAR can also have a powerful influence on the climate of the organization. It is a part of the communication process that educates and motivates people and focuses them on organizational priorities to improve procedures across the organization. 
 +
The key questions to be asked during an AAA session are:
 +
# What was supposed to happen?
 +
# What actually happened?
 +
# Why was there a difference?
 +
# What can you learn from it?
  
After taking part in several after action reviews, Terry provides others with several recommendations…
 
  
  
"The first thing that you have to do is be open minded about the process.
+
==Success factors==
It is something new and different. Go with the flow – it works.
+
You have to ensure that the group has a sense of trust so that they can openly talk about the things that don’t work.
+
You should also use the after action review to review the things that did work and the things that didn’t work quite so well.
+
You can always learn." — Terry
+
  
 +
* Mutual trust must be obtained so that people will speak freely. The climate must be one of trust, openness and commitment to learning.
 +
* Proper documentation of lessons learned (in form of minutes or remarks or system inputs) and placement in an easy accessible repository.
 +
* Ensuring that the session is brief and to the point.
 +
* The AAA is not a full project review. This takes place at or near the end of the project and is more substantial in scope and content.
 +
* Excellent facilitation skills.
 +
 +
  
'''Hugh'''
+
==Common pitfalls==
 +
The AAR facilitator is the project leader/task implementer. In this case the neutrality of the facilitator is not in place and free exchange of thoughts and possible suggestions for improvements can be perceived as critics.
 +
Often AARs are conducted in a format of performance evaluation instead of free idea exchange and analysis. This link with performance appraisal or result evaluation destroys the core value of the approach
 +
Blind video recording of the discussion might make the recording con less attractive for storing, retrieving and can prevent people from an open discussion as it is on record.
  
Hugh Campbell managed the Windows XP project at ITMD which involved the design and testing of a new corporate disk image based on Windows XP. The new images were developed for deployment on all new desktops and laptops. Although Hugh has not yet applied any specifics recommendations from the after action review, the process has resulted in a few unexpected surprises…
 
  
 
"One surprise was the reception by the user community who were on the receiving end of the project.
 
The after action review process very evidently improved their confidence in the way ITMD was doing their work.
 
It also leveled off the understanding of the project among the variety of people involved in the process.
 
At the end of the process, we ended up sharing a common view of the project." — Hugh
 
 
 
Hugh suggests that after action reviews be planned in advance at key milestones in the project.
 
 
 
"For projects on a similar scale, which affect an entire organization,
 
after action reviews should be scheduled 2-3 times throughout the project –
 
at milestones rather than at the end of the project.
 
We used the after action review at the end of the project
 
but there were at least two other opportunities throughout the project which they could have been used." — Hugh
 
 
 
'''Allen'''
 
 
Allen Sinfield has participated in the majority of after action reviews conducted at ITMD as the Manager of the Infrastructure Support Unit. Allen recognized that ITMD would continue to face the same issues if they continued to do things the same. after action reviews could help the team identify the issues and as a result, change how they were doing business. Having now done four after action reviews, ITMD is slowly beginning to see a consistent pattern especially around the identification of project goals.
 
 
 
"After we had completed two after action reviews, it became clearer to us that ITMD had two types of goals
 
that needed to be identified and achieved – client goals and technical goals.
 
This surprised us because we thought we could put all of the goals together on one table.
 
Instead we found out that the project managers need to be the conduit between the two types of goals
 
rather than trying to mix them together.— Allen"
 
 
 
== References ==
 
[[Knowledge management for radioactive waste management organisations|Knowledge management for radioactive waste management organisations IAEA, NG-T-6.5]]
 
 
[[Planning and Execution of Knowledge Management Assist Missions for Nuclear Organizations|Planning and Execution of Knowledge Management Assist Missions for Nuclear Organizations IAEA-TECDOC-1586]]
 
  
 
==Related articles==
 
==Related articles==
  
This is an example of a tool used to facilitate [[Learning|learning]].
+
[[Action review]]
 
+
A [[Significant milestone review|significant milestone review]] is a process aimed learning during a project.
+
 
+
A [[Post-project review|post-project review]] helps to evaluate the lessons learned after the project has been completed.
+
  
 +
[[Peer assist]]
  
[[Category:Tools]]
+
[[Lessons learned]]
  
[[Category:Learning process tools]]
 
[[Category:Learning from communities tools]]
 
[[Category:Learning through reflection tools]]
 
  
[[Category:Tacit transfer tools]]
+
[[Category:Review]]
[[Category:Implicit capture tools]]
+

Latest revision as of 14:57, 16 February 2016


Definition

A method used to capture and evaluate lessons learned from an action, project or activity. (Last published: A process that involves conducting a structured and facilitated discussion after a task or project has been completed to review what should have happened; what actually happened; and, where differences exist, why it happened)


Purpose and benefits

The after action review is a simple process used by a team to capture the lessons learned from past successes and failures with the goal of improving future performance. It is an opportunity for a team to reflect on a project, activity, event or task so that the next time, they can do better. The review will not only make learning conscious within a team but it can also help build trust amongst the team’s members. Intended audience and required skill for delivery. Participants of an after action review should include all members of the team. A competent and neutral facilitator should be appointed to help create an open environment, promote discussion and draw out lessons learned.

After action review allows participants to learn how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses in subsequent tasks or projects. It is used to help teams to learn quickly from their successes and failures and share their learning with other teams.

Description

AARs identify and capture the things that went well and the things that could be improved so that team or work group members are aware of and can use the broader team/group's learning in their future projects or work activities. Results can also be shared with future teams or other work groups so they can learn from the experiences of others. AARs are excellent for making tacit knowledge explicit during the life of a project or activity. AARs are a useful tool for developing employees by providing constructive, directly actionable feedback in a non-threatening way. They give employees an opportunity to share their views and ideas.

  1. Pre-requisites:

The sessions should be done as soon as possible after the completion of the project task or activityies. They could also be done at any strategic point during a project. AARs simply need to have a beginning and an end, an identifiable purpose and some basis on which actions can be assessed. A competent and neutral facilitator should be appointed to help create an open environment, promote discussion and draw out lessons learned.

  1. The AAR process:
    1. When planning and preparing for the AAR session, please consider the following:
      • Schedule the AAR
      • Select a facilitator
      • Notify participants
      • Select and prepare the AAR site/location
      • Assemble AAR materials
      • Establish the AAR agenda or discussion flow
    2. When conducting, please consider the following:
      • Seek maximum participation
      • Maintain focus on AAR objectives
      • Review key points learned
      • Record the AAR
  2. Follow-up:

Results can also be shared with future teams or other work groups so they can learn from the experiences of others through an easily accessible location/resource (e.g. shared space, portal, corporate project management system, blogs, corporate wiki) . Well documented results of an after action review session can be incorporated into a critical incident review system and incorporated into the corrective actions schema (often adopted by NPPs, less common for nuclear R&D organizations)

Variations

An action review is commonly conducted after a task or activity is completed. However in some cases an intermediate action review can be undertaken. The main principles applied are still the same. There are three types of AARs. Although the fundamentals are similar and depending upon the event, an AAR can be Formal, Informal or Personal. All involve the exchange of observations and ideas. Both Formal and Informal AARs should be appropriately documented so lessons learned may be shared across functional and geographic boundaries, and so that implementation of improvements can be measured.

  • Formal AAR: A formal AAR is more structured, requires planning and takes longer to conduct. The formal AAR usually occurs immediately or soon after an event is completed. It may also occur while the event is in-progress. A neutral third party should facilitate a formal AAR.
  • Informal AAR: Informal AARs are less structured, require much less preparation and planning and can be conducted anywhere, anytime, for any event, by anyone. Examples: following a meeting or conference call; or as part of a safety briefing. Managers or other interested parties may facilitate their own informal AARs.

Implementation guide

There are no universal rules on how AARs should be undertaken, as many organizations develop their specific formants and level of formalization or involvement. What makes AARs so powerful is that they can be applied across a wide spectrum of events from two individuals conducting a 5-minute AAR at the end of a short meeting to a longer AAR held by a team at the end of a large project. Individuals involved may absorb lessons learned on the spot and they can be documented in a format that can be shared with a wider audience. A properly conducted AAR can also have a powerful influence on the climate of the organization. It is a part of the communication process that educates and motivates people and focuses them on organizational priorities to improve procedures across the organization. The key questions to be asked during an AAA session are:

  1. What was supposed to happen?
  2. What actually happened?
  3. Why was there a difference?
  4. What can you learn from it?


Success factors

  • Mutual trust must be obtained so that people will speak freely. The climate must be one of trust, openness and commitment to learning.
  • Proper documentation of lessons learned (in form of minutes or remarks or system inputs) and placement in an easy accessible repository.
  • Ensuring that the session is brief and to the point.
  • The AAA is not a full project review. This takes place at or near the end of the project and is more substantial in scope and content.
  • Excellent facilitation skills.


Common pitfalls

The AAR facilitator is the project leader/task implementer. In this case the neutrality of the facilitator is not in place and free exchange of thoughts and possible suggestions for improvements can be perceived as critics. Often AARs are conducted in a format of performance evaluation instead of free idea exchange and analysis. This link with performance appraisal or result evaluation destroys the core value of the approach Blind video recording of the discussion might make the recording con less attractive for storing, retrieving and can prevent people from an open discussion as it is on record.


Related articles

Action review

Peer assist

Lessons learned