The After-Action Review is an evidence-based approach for retrospectives and collective learning. The following is a quote from TC 25-20 A Leader’s Guide To After Action Review…
“An after-action review (AAR) is a professional discussion of an event, focused on performance standards, that enables soldiers to discover for themselves what happened, why it happened, and how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses. It is a tool leaders and units can use to get maximum benefit from every mission or task.”
The following is an excerpt from the US Armys Research Institute’s publication Foundations of the After Action Review Process from 1999…
“The after action review (AAR) is the Army’s method for providing performance feedback from a collective training exercise. The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) has performed much of the research and development (R&D) for the AAR. […]
The first AAR methods were implemented in the mid 1970s in training programs developed by ARI for their optically based Tactical Engagement System (TES) training programs. Soon thereafter, AAR methods were modified for the next-generation TES system, the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement Simulation (MILES), and to support training at the Army’s National Training Center (NTC). The next important influence on the AAR process the development of computer networked simulation systems in L-iic mid 1980s—in particular, the Simulation Networking (SIMNET) system. ARI guided the development of two generations of lowcost systems to provide SIMNET the capability to capture and analyze electronic data for the AAR.” — Foundations of the After Action Review Process
There are three questions mentioned in the article cited above that frame the AAR…
- What happened during the collective training exercise?
- Why did it happen?
- How can units improve their performance?
In TC 25-20 cited above, the format of an offical military-style AAR looks like this…
- Introduction and rules.
- Review of training objectives.
- Commander’s mission and intent (what was supposed to happen).
- Opposing force (OPFOR) commander’s mission and intent (when appropriate).
- Relevant doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).
- Summary of recent events (what happened).
- Discussion of key issues (why it happened and how to improve).
- Discussion of optional issues.
- Discussion of force protection issues (discussed throughout).
- Closing comments (summary).
This format can be destilled into the following four questions, essentially adding a question at the top of the three questions mentioned earlier…
- What was supposed to happen?
- What actually happened?
- Why did it happen?
- How can we improve? / What can we do next time?
One of the best instructional videos on AAR is Conducting Effective After Action Reviews by The Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center…
Part 2…
More to a Learning Organization
Of course, AAR should not be used as the only continuous learning tool, but it is a simple method to achieve many things on the road towards a Learning Organization. AARs should be held often, definitely more often than at the end of a two week sprint as with retrospectives. I have had success facilitating them once every day to once per week depending on the amount of work under review. More work, AARs more often. AARs work equally well when everything went well as an aid getting to the root cause why the plan went well, to production incident postmortems.
Right or wrong?
TC 25-20 and the ARI report cited in the beginning mention some excellent concerns regarding how to facilitate an AAR. Read them.
I sometimes hear asking “what went right?” and “what went wrong?” which is something I don’t like, it immediately locks participants into assumptions of what is right and wrong according to company policies or worse - if something is in the gray zone. Something was always planned when conducting an AAR, that is the first box. There are no right or wrong perspectives, just different perspectives. Park any discrepancies among the team members regarding what the plan was for the why box, there’s something great to learn about your processess and ways of communication if participants interpret what was planned differently. The second box is describing what actually happened (not why) from the perspectives of each participant. Do not jump to the why anywhere in the previous steps. Exhaust the what was supposed to happen and what actually happened before analyzing why it happened. As I mentioned earlier, you should perform AARs on things that went excellent and capture the learnings from that as well as on things that went bad.