An after action review (AAR) is a structured review or de-brief process for analyzing what happened, why it happened, and how it can be done better, by the participants and those responsible for the project or event. After-action reviews in the formal sense were originally developed by the U.S. Army although less structured de-briefs after events have existed since time immemorial. Formal AARs are used by all US military services and by many other non-US organizations. Their use has extended to business as a knowledge management tool and a way to build a culture of accountability.
An AAR occurs within a cycle of establishing the leader's intent, planning, preparation, action and review. An AAR is distinct from a de-brief in that it begins with a clear comparison of intended vs. actual results achieved. An AAR is distinct from a post-mortem in its tight focus on participant's own action - learning from the review is taken forward by the participants. Recommendations for others are not produced. AARs in larger operations can be cascaded in order to keep each level of the organization focused on its own performance within a particular event or project.
Formal AAR meetings are normally run by a facilitator, and can be chronological reviews or tightly focused on a few key issues selected by the team leader. Short cycle informal AARs are typically run by the team leader or assistant and are very quick.
Read more about After Action Review: After Action Reviews in The Military
Famous quotes containing the words action and/or review:
“Acts themselves alone are history.... Tell me the acts, O historian, and leave me to reason upon them as I please; away with your reasoning and your rubbish! All that is not action is not worth reading.”
—William Blake (1757–1827)
“Americans have internalized the value that mothers of young children should be mothers first and foremost, and not paid workers. The result is that a substantial amount of confusion, ambivalence, guilt, and anxiety is experienced by working mothers. Our cultural expectations of mother and realities of female participation in the labor force are directly contradictory.”
—Ruth E. Zambrana, U.S. researcher, M. Hurst, and R.L. Hite. “The Working Mother in Contemporary Perspectives: A Review of Literature,” Pediatrics (December 1979)