Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water ...

After Action Review
A group process for assessing the effectiveness of events or the way situations were handled.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, assessment, knowledge retention, innovation
LEVEL OF EFFORT
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCOPE OF WORK
MED
SCALABLE
WIDE
While After Action Reviews were initiated by the military a number of years ago, they have
more recently been effectively used in organizations with diverse missions. The concept is that
key questions are asked by engaged stakeholders following every event or situation to assess
the context of the event and capture the learning that has occurred. The After Action Review
Learning and Assessment Document is ―pushed‖ (via email or a pre-determined reporting
process) to those individuals to whom it has immediate relevance, and stored virtually for future
ease of access to the larger utility team.
After Action Reviews serve as real-time on-going assessment vehicles as well as to build
shared understanding in those who participated. They also serve as lessons learned for those
who later read them and assessment instruments for those who later analyze them, perhaps as
part of a larger pattern of events.
People involved in the action part of the effort are questioned carefully about their feelings,
perceptions, why they did what they did and what they expected the outcome to be. By helping
the individual participants re-live the entire sequence of the effort, they learn to reflect on the
sequence, understand why things happened and as a result they gain a deeper understanding
of the nature and behavior of the activity. See Lessons Learned Sample Report.
An essential feature of the AAR process adopted by the U.S. Army is involvement of all
personnel, soldiers and leaders, immediately after an event, while the details are still fresh in
their minds. They compare the actual outcome of the event with the intended outcome,
discovering what went right and why, and why went wrong and why. The discussion is
completely candid and without consciousness of rank. Thus leaders and soldiers can openly
and honestly discuss what actually transpired in sufficient detail and clarity that not only will
everyone understand what did and did not occur and why, but most important will have a strong
desire to seek the opportunity to practice the task again. To help promote this openness and
honesty, the Army publication on AARs directed that seating be arranged in a horseshoe shape,
so that the greatest number of soldiers have front-row seats. The officers sit behind the
soldiers. Additionally, the AAR leader is often a trained facilitator and not one of the
commanders. In Case Example #6, SHELL HP uses AARs. For a U.S. Army example of
application of the AAR, see Case Example #7. For their impact in USAID, see Case Example
#17.
The Singapore Armed Forces expanded the After Action/Action Learning process to include
three phases: Before Action Learning (BAL), During Action Leaning (DAL) and After Action
Learning (AAL). During the BAL, the group identifies what it thinks will happen and why and
how it will happen. After the action has started, the group stops and evaluates what has
happened, how it differs from what was expected, and then incorporates any needed changes
from the original action plan. After the action is completed, a third learning review occurs to
C-9
©2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.