A lesson learned is a systematic action of creating lessons and knowledge from past activities to enable learning and its application in future activities.
There are many methods for extracting lessons learned, and in previous reviews, we mentioned three central methods:
Classic investigation
Lessons learned integrated into learning processes
Peer learning.
However, this is not a closed list of existing methods.
In his perception, lesson creation is only the first stage in the lesson lifecycle, and therefore all roads that lead to Rome are good. In this review, we will present the After Action Review method, or AAR for short, a method implemented by many organizations, first and foremost the U.S. Army.
The After-Action Review method, as its name suggests, is primarily suitable for examining pre-planned small—to medium-sized events where we want to evaluate the performance quality and thereby derive lessons for improvement. Examples include debriefing a training or operational flight and reviewing a unit exercise or operational action. Incidentally, the method originated in Navy training bodies that analyzed exercises.
In organizational reality, this method is particularly suitable for investigating projects, operations, tenders, etc., where the emphasis is on examining small—to medium-sized events, which are usually routine events.
If this is the case, then this method allows us to cover most of the events occurring in the organization.
The method is based on asking several questions, where the analyzed answers will guide us toward the goal:
What did we expect/plan to happen?
What actually happened?
Why did it happen?
What is recommended to change?
The After-Action Review method should be implemented as close as possible to the completion of the evaluated action. If the end date of the action is known in advance, it is recommended to schedule the debriefing as close as possible. In some organizations, the review is conducted on the same day of the activity as part of its actual closure.
Now we will review what each of the questions includes, and how it is recommended to approach them:
What Did We Expect/Plan to Happen?
The intention at this stage is to review the original plan on which the activity was based. The fundamental assumption is that the activity had predetermined objectives and goals, for example: sales quantity, winning a tender at a cost of up to X shekels/dollars, increasing sales volume by X%, and so on. In this section, it is also recommended to include the basic assumptions that accompanied us in planning the action, such as: the response of this or that sector to the campaign, competitor responses, client/supplier requirements in the tender, market fluctuations, and more. Additionally, if risk management was performed as part of activity preparation, it is also recommended to include that here. The goal is to enable a qualitative mapping of all the information we had in advance to evaluate the quality of decision-making based on the early information we possessed. Examining these assumptions will serve us in providing feedback for future assumptions.
What Actually Happened?
At this stage, the intention is to collect post-activity result data, such as sales quantity, increase or decrease in sales volume, etc., with an emphasis on collecting data relevant to the planned activity. It is recommended to place the "true data" in a table opposite the original estimates. It is also recommended to examine the original hypotheses and assumptions and indicate which were realized and which were not.
Why Did It Happen?
At this stage, we will try to propose explanations for the activity's results, with two possible outcomes: success or failure. We will seek explanations by responding to questions arising from the action's result findings. Asking questions is done to challenge our preliminary assumptions, examine whether our perception of what occurred was correct, and whether a different interpretation of reality could be proposed, to identify how we should behave in the future. We can ask questions like: • Did we forget something? • Was there something that should have been done but wasn't? • Did we perform partially? And so on.
The critical part is to try to identify intervening variables, isolate them, and examine how we can avoid the deception involved with them in the future.
Success
We have discussed the investigation of successes before, and yet, we want to emphasize the importance of investigating success.
Ultimately, most organizations produce more successes than failures, and therefore, there is enormous potential for learning from them.
During the investigation, it is important to note even seemingly trivial details and try to explain them. For example, if the planning was successful, it is important to try to understand which planning model we used and how we implemented it. It is especially important to investigate cases where success was significantly greater than expected, as this may indicate that the planning was not accurate, a fact that, in many cases, can work to the organization's disadvantage.
Failure
In investigating failure, it is first important to focus the results on the activity, not on people.
It is particularly important to understand which parts of the planning were flawed, which assumptions did not match reality, and so on.
Additionally, it is crucial to understand the implementation gaps, including all factors involved in the implementation process. At this stage, the tendency is to be satisfied with reasonable explanations, most of which can be guessed in advance. Such a situation will prevent reaching the depth of the factors that led to the failure and thus lose the hoped-for lesson.
It is important to remember that the proposed explanations are offered in hindsight, and therefore, one should avoid a situation of "Monday morning quarterbacking," especially when it comes to deliberations regarding the implementation of the activity. In practical terms, avoid provocative expressions such as "I knew it in advance" or "I told you so."
What Can Be Done?
After understanding the gaps and the causes of these gaps, it is particularly important to propose possible courses of action to prevent the recurrence of such cases in the future. Unlike the previous evaluation stages that focus on the past, this stage focuses on the future and future activities. When formulating the rules and principles we recommend acting in the future, it is important to avoid formulating lessons that can only be implemented in hindsight. Ask yourselves: Could we have known this in advance, or what is the likelihood that such a result will recur under the same planning and implementation assumptions. Avoid formulating new procedures, rules, or processes unless you are convinced they can perform better next time.
In Summary, we have presented the After Action Review method, which focuses on evaluating the result of a pre-planned event. This method has a significant central advantage, which is its methodological simplicity. Unlike other methods, no high skill is required to investigate according to the methodology, as it is almost intuitive. However, it is recommended that you be careful not to implement it as such and to ensure that the questions are deepened as long as necessary.
The obvious disadvantage of using this method is the level of depth: on the surface, it has a high chance of "missing" lessons due to insufficient depth. A more far-reaching claim in this context is that this method allows investigating to go through the motions. In our opinion, like everything in life, the use depends on the user. Those who truly want to delve into the depths of things can do so with any method they choose, just as those who want to go through the motions can do so with any method.
In the end, properly implementing the After Action Review method can help us enrich our investigation repertoire and allow greater operational flexibility by increasing its absorption among worker populations.
Comments