Difference between revisions of "After action review"

Revision as of 10:16, 16 January 2014

Template:Comment

Definition

After action review is 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)

Summary

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.

Description

Purpose

To reflect on a recent activity and to learn lessons that will guide future actions.

Beneficiaries and other stakeholders

All teams, projects and 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:

1. What was supposed to happen?
2. What actually happened?
3. Why were there differences?
4. 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.

1. What was supposed to happen?

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

Case studies:

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 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.

“People seem to like them and have stuck with them.
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

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. 
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

Hugh 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"

Critical success factors

1. Facilitation skills;
2. Environment of trust;
3. Genuine interest in improvements based on collective experience;
4. Time to sit down and reflect.

FAQ

What is an after action review?

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.

Why do an after action review?

The after action review will not only make 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

1. After action review handout;
2. After action review flipchart;
3. After action review sample report.

Other related documents

1. After action review training materials

References

Knowledge management for radioactive waste management organisations IAEA, NG-T-6.5

Planning and Execution of Knowledge Management Assist Missions for Nuclear Organizations IAEA-TECDOC-1586

Related articles

This is an example of a tool used to facilitate learning processes.

A Significant milestone review is a process aimed learning during a project.

A Post-project review helps to evaluate the lessons learned after the project has been completed.