Difference between revisions of "After action review"
m |
m (→Definition) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Definition== | ==Definition== | ||
| − | |||
{{PAGENAME}} is a {{ {{PAGENAME}} }} | {{PAGENAME}} is a {{ {{PAGENAME}} }} | ||
| + | '''Source:''' [[Knowledge management for radioactive waste management organisations ]] | ||
== Summary== | == Summary== | ||
Revision as of 12:37, 23 July 2013
Definition
After action review is a 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) Source: Knowledge management for radioactive waste management organisations
Summary
One paragaph summary which summarises the main ideas of the article.
Description 1
After action review (AAR) is a process used to capture and evaluate lessons learned. It takes the form of a quick and informal review and discussion at the end of a project or at a key stage within a project or other activity. It enable
- Decide what action should be taken next in similar situations.
The discussions should typically cover:
- What happened and why;
- What went well or better than expected;
- What development issues occurred that require improvement;
- What lessons can be learned from the experience for the next project.
In R&D organizations, much work results in the creation of new knowledge. By formalizing the way this knowledge is extracted and recorded, it can readily be made available to colleagues and other organizations facing similar challenges. AAR therefore provides a simple and quick way of making an informed decision about how to approach the next project or study.
Source:
Knowledge Management for Nuclear Research and Development Organizations
