“The Army’s After Action Review (AAR) is arguably one of the most successful organizational learning methods yet devised. Yet, most every corporate effort to graft this truly innovative practice into their culture has failed because, again and again, people reduce the living practice of AARs to a sterile technique.” ~Peter Senge

From the GP (a.k.a. “Jeep”) to amazing medical advances (consider recent advances in prosthetic limbs) to the Internet (ARPANET in its infancy), it is clear that the civilian world has greatly benefited from innovations made by the United States military over the last century.

Among the more recent crossovers is a process utilized by the U.S Army for the continual improvement of training exercises known as the After Action Review. The After Action Review (AAR) is currently being adopted by many in the business world as a method to determine the success of organizational learning initiatives. The greater strength of this process lies, however, when organization leaders move beyond using the AAR as a simple training evaluation method and integrate After Action Reviews into their knowledge management systems for the purpose of capturing, transferring, sharing and leveraging organizational knowledge.

History of the AAR

The U.S. Army developed and formalized its learning methodology known as After Action Reviews in the 1970s. This came about as a result of the difficulties the Army faced when trying to record every aspect of a large-scale training event like a combat training exercise. When unable to examine military training exercises from every angle, determining the reasons for success or failure was difficult, and the results were often unclear. The AAR process was created to bring out both individual and group learning about training exercises immediately after they take place.

Through a facilitated process designed to tease out both the strengths and weaknesses of the training process, possible corrective actions that will improve procedures and performance in the future can be identified. The AAR process has been extremely successful in the U.S. Army and is now so firmly entrenched in its culture that an AAR takes place immediately following every single training exercise, as well as non-training situations and initiatives.

Transition into the Corporate World

AARs were first utilized in the business environment in the 1990s. Since then, many organizations have formally espoused AARs as part of their culture, including Motorola, Bechtel, General Electric and British Petroleum.

Businesses tend to use AARs as an evaluative tool to gather qualitative data regarding how effective their training programs are. If organizations stop there, though, they are missing the true power of the process. It is when organizations use this tool to draw out individual stories to capture, build and leverage common knowledge that the AAR is taken to the next level.

While some organizations give the AAR process different names and title the steps differently when they are incorporated into their culture, the basic AAR process is as follows…

AAR Process

The primary goals of the AAR process are 1) to determine whether the participants learned what they were supposed to learn during the instructional module, and 2) to capture ideas regarding how the training process itself might be improved. The AAR takes place either immediately after a learning event or after a pre-determined amount of time has gone by to allow for the application of newly learned knowledge and skills back on the job.

When applied to the workplace, the basic steps of an AAR are as follows…

1. Gather participants and training leaders together in the same space.

Ideally, keep the group to about 15 or fewer people. If the training class is simply too large to facilitate a productive discussion, then select a random sample of participants for the AAR. Of course, you can always hold several different AARs for the same training event in order to capture everyone’s ideas.

2. Review the training objectives.

Be sure to review the objectives that were established for the training event. If it is the training event itself that is being evaluated in the AAR, then the learning objectives (specific things a learner completing the course should know or be able to do upon the conclusion of the training experience) will be reviewed. If the effectiveness of the training event is being evaluated, then the performance objectives (what learners will be able to do when they are back in their own work environment) will also need to be reviewed.

3. Review what was supposed to happen.

Be specific with how the training event was originally designed to take place, or in other words, the ideal picture that the training leaders had when they created the training program. This description may also include what the training leaders had hoped would happen when employees got back on the job in regards to transferring their newly acquired knowledge and skills to the job.

4. Summarize what actually happened.

As Steinbeck wrote in his novel Of Mice and Men, "The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry." It is important to take the time to discuss the reality of what really happened during and/or after the training event. Also, as there are different perspectives of what happened (participants, trainers, other stakeholders), then be sure to tap into as many different points of view as possible to get a complete picture of what actually occurred.

5. Discuss of why things happened the way they did.

When discussing the reality of the training event, ask participants why they think things turned out the way they did. This is where the group will identify the problems with the program design, process or the skills of the facilitator(s). This discussion may also bring out problems that are not training specific, such as low morale, a lack of physical resources, inconsistent or ineffective processes or structure, or a lack of information. All of these have the ability to impact the success of a company training program.

6. Discuss about how to improve the training program/process.

Once the problems are identified, ask the group how the program can be improved. Identifying and capturing these corrective actions through facilitated brainstorming is the key to a truly successful AAR. It doesn’t matter whether the ideas are captured on a flip chart, index cards, or taken down by someone recording the discussion. What does matter is that the flow of conversation is not hindered by the idea generation process itself. Ensure that a safe environment is provided so that everyone can contribute and all perspectives are heard.

7. Summarize what was discussed.

When the improvement discussion wraps up, the facilitator should paraphrase the discussion in such a way as to reflect the main concepts covered during the AAR. Everyone should walk away knowing that the training event was thoroughly reviewed and that ideas for improvement in the future were heard and recorded for future implementation. Of course, decisions do not have to be made at the time of the After Action Review. [When decisions are made based on the discussion during the AAR, then be sure to communicate the decision with those who participated. This will let them know that the time they spent in the AAR was not wasted.]

Other Applications

For learning initiatives that are large in scope, consider doing AARs at the end of each sub-step of the design and development process. The learners themselves might not be part of the discussion, but individuals who were charged with completing specific deliverables could partake. The AAR would be a rich qualitative addition to a traditional formative evaluation process.

The AAR can also be applied to events that are not training specific to help company leaders continually improve events that are not training events. For example, if an organization has an annual strategic planning meeting, why not use an AAR afterward to find out what went well, what didn’t go well, and to generate ideas for improving the strategic planning process the next time? From holiday parties to board of director meetings, every event that a company holds could be evaluated through an AAR meeting. Regardless of what type of event is being reviewed, the keys to successful AARs are immediacy, consistency and discipline.

Why the AAR is Different

Participants

Most post-event evaluations – if done in person rather than via a survey – are focused on gathering information from the learners only. The AAR is unique in that it brings learners, leaders and other stakeholders such as information technologies, the program sponsor, etc. together to have an in-depth evaluative conversation. However, for all players to come together to improve a program/process – and as a result improve the organization – then titles and authoritative influence should be set aside and an environment of sharing and openness must be established. It is the leadership of the organization that must instill, model and reinforce the mindset and behaviors necessary to allow for the open dialogue, brutal honesty and a focus on continual improvement that is necessary for AARs to be effective.

Structure

Interviews and focus groups are the standard, face-to-face qualitative measurement processes in the corporate world today. The AAR is, in fact, a type of focus group. While this in itself is not unique, what is different is that the steps of the AAR process, and thus the structure of the conversation, is the same no matter what the event being discussed or who is participating. Because the steps never waver, when the organization as a whole learns the AAR steps and employees at all levels can anticipate what will be discussed, the conversations should flow easily and will require light facilitation. AARs can be as brief as 15 minutes and should last no longer than an hour. For this process to be successful, the organization leadership must allow for the resources needed, such as time and space, to complete the AARs regularly and thoroughly.

Topics

The typical business initiative evaluation process focuses primarily on three basic topics: 1) what worked well, 2) what did not work well, and 3) ideas for improvement. While these three components are also included in the AAR discussion, the AAR goes much deeper by including a conversation around what was intended to happen, as well as the reason(s) why the reality might not have matched the plan.

Often, leaders do not want to admit that the plan they developed did not fly as predicted. They do not want their employees seeing mistakes or weakness, so they pretend that the event went off without a hitch. To prevent this false pretense – and thus the avoidance of addressing problems – the AAR enables employees and their leaders to discuss together what the leaders’ intentions were. If the intentions matched reality, then the group can discuss the event’s success. If the intentions did not match reality, though, then the group can delve into the root cause of the discrepancy. With the learners’ input, some aspects of the process to which the leaders might not be privy (for example, the learner’s supervisor’s attitude about the program) can come to light. With the leaders’ input, the learners can come to appreciate the time and effort that goes into the planning process. For this kind of discussion to work, the organization leadership must ensure that there is a culture that allows for mistakes, and that there are no avenues for employees at any level to play the “gotcha” game up the hierarchy. If people feel they will get into trouble by admitting mistakes, or if employees are allowed to “bring down” their leaders by reporting mistakes, then the AAR process will fail.

Conclusion

In conclusion, building AAR meetings into the company systems can help build and support a collaborative learning culture. If done well, AARs promote creative innovation and a mindset of continual improvement. Employees will feel as though the company leadership cares about what they have to say and this, in turn, can increase employee engagement and retention. Most importantly, ideas for the improvement of processes, programs and events within the organization will flow freely. With so much to gain, why not give the After Action Review a try?