I just posted the story, Will We Learn from Experience, to the resources section of the webiste. It is a case study I use in my training of AAR and of AAR Facilitators. It is a true story and does a nice job describing the AAR process and the challenges of getting results from it. Includes discussion questions.

I recommend it if you are training people in the process.

If you have case studies, I would love to hear them.

Two months ago, we offered Knowledge Stewardship workshops to three NGOs in Iraq. Today, one of the team members describes her experience with After Action Review and how it is proving to help their NGO work. In the process, they offer some practical tips and encouraging words. I have summarized some of their comments below. You can also listen to their 10 minute interview.

Using AAR in NGO work

At the MRDS family centre in Suleymaniyeh, we had been seeing declining enrolments for sewing classes. We held an AAR among the staff to talk about what might be causing this. We began by focusing on the last time we did registrations, which was not very successful. This led us to focus on the need for feedback from the community and especially former students. We gathered 17 of our graduates for tea, cookies, and retrospection: what did they like about the centre, what were they looking for, what we could improve. This was a very positive experience both for us and even more for these women. We learned quite a lot about our “customers” needs and life conditions and what they considered to be valuable. The women felt affirmed because we were asking their opinions. And they gained a new sense of ownership of the family centre, coming to see that they could have a stake in what was offered and where things could go. This has greatly helped our connection with the community and rejuvenated the life of our NGO. (more…)

[UPDATED] What is the maximum size for an After Action Review? 

For instance, a nonprofit I know has had to evacuate their staff from a country. This is part of the reality of working in volatile situations. When they do this, they want to learn lessons in case they have to this again. They often do a full review that takes several weeks, lots of interviews, and a written report. Or consider Preemptive Love Coalition. When they take children to Istanbul for heart surgery, the trip itself can take a week or two with lots going on before, during, and after. Many, many lessons they could learn for the next time they do a surgical trip, which might be several months in the future.   

I would not use an AAR in these situations. 

Is that surprising? Here is what I mean. 

[UPDATE: I realized I need to say a little more to answer the "size" question]

Size is not the most important consideration

The inital question was about the maximum size for an AAR. The size of the group is not the most important consideration. For an AAR, I am more concerned with focus and time and the right people. 

• The focus of an AAR is fairly local. It is based on the recent experience of the team. It is oriented on helping the team learn from that experience and then updating their process or approach for the next time they – or someone like them – has to do the same sort of thing.  
• The time duration of an AAR is fairly short. The AAR meeting should run between 15 and 30 minutes. After 30 minutes, people begin to feel that it is an intrusion into their ability to get their work done. And when that happens, they become reluctant to do it again. It is much more important to do AARs regularly than to do them “completely.” When they become regular, the team develops the habits to improve continually.
• The right people are the ones who experienced the event and are invested in improving. For an AAR, you want to ensure you are getting the perspective of everyone who experienced the event. You may not need every person, but you probably want most of them and at least a representative from each set of people.

The size of the group is the number that can cover these objectives and get the conversation done within the timeframe. Practically, the larger the group, the more focused and creative the facilitator has to be.I have done AARs with groups as small as 4 and as large as 20. With more than 20 people, it is hard to get the meeting done in 30 minutes.  Instead, I might see if I could just have representatives from sets of people or I might see if we could break the event into smaller chunks. Or, more likely, I might turn it into a longer form “Retrospect Meeting” (as described below) to give us more time. It all depends on the depth of analysis we need to do and the likelihood we are to do the event again soon.

Seeing AAR’s place

Let’s take a step back and see where AAR fits with other tools for team-based reflecting. (more…)

My colleague, Phil, had a great insight in response to my last blog post, What to do with lessons learned. I was talking about visibility boards:

The best motivation to keep on doing retrospections is when the team sees that it is producing tangible results, that their work is becoming more effective or efficient. I want to be sure that the team or the community that cares about the change or improvement sees the progress being made.  

A visibility board is an easy and important tool to help everyone see the progress being made and to be reminded. It is a physical board that shows everyone – team members, management, leadership, and facilitator – the status of implementing improvements or removing impediments that are getting in the way of doing work. 

The visiblity board should be displayed in a public place: in the team’s work area or in front of the manager’s office or in a team’s virutal workspace if they have a common system they use. Not only does this help everyone remember to implement solutions but it also helps other people see the ideas that are being generated.

Phil’s point is that when you commit to you a change, you need to follow up to see how it is working.

Based on his experience as a process improvement coach, he says that 

… the outcome from [a process improvement event, such as an AAR or retrospection] needs to be tracked as a formal organization “story” to validate that the improvement suggestions were implemented and how successful they were (or not). We had 30, 60, or 90 day follow-ups. Someone (or group in our case) has to lead this. If we take the time to come up with improvements or suggest new ways of doing things, we want to be disciplined about implementing and taking action on the improvements to validate that our intentional goals for taking action are being met and if they are not, understanding why and come up a new action item (or kaizen).

Retrospection only works through disciplined practice both by teams and by leadership.

In the last blog, I started talking about what to do with the lessons that teams are learning from their retrospections / after action reviews (AAR). My basic rule is to

Everyone is busy. So when a team discovers a new lesson or an impediment that needs to be removed, start out doing “just enough” to address it and learn what else to do. Sometimes, the solution can be done quickly and sometimes it will require digging deeper, maybe even gathering a team together to discover the “root cause” of a problem. Do what is required to solve the problem. Just be sure not to try doing something more complex that is needed. The chances are, doing more than is required will result in a lot of wasted effort… and legacy documents that have to be maintained a long time for little benefit. 

When I implement a solution, I try to “touch things once.” That means, if I have to open a document to make changes, I want to make them right then if I can. Don’t create piles of things to do later (you will never find them again!). Throw the thing away. Go talk with the person. Try to make it so you don’t have to remember later to do something – there will always be something that will interrupt you.  

My other rule is to

Rule 2: Implement quickly. Remove impediments quickly. And make progress visible.

(more…)

After one of the AARs we did, a participant brought up the issue of a repository for AARs:

“If we are going to embrace AARs for various events and activities, I have a couple recommendations. The only reservation I have about tools of this sort is that an evaluation is made and then everybody forgets what form the conclusions took and where it was stored so they can quickly and easily refer to it again. Sometimes people forget that an evaluation was made and don’t bother to look it up again.

I recommend we create an AAR folder somewhere on a network drive and make sure all AARs from any department or source be placed there. If some need to be confidential, password protect them. Also, some kind of standardisation should be adhered to so that there is some consistency. An AAR template or form perhaps?

Additionally, I think AARs for repeating or similar events should not be separate documents but be updated within the same, original document. Otherwise observations and conclusions get siloed and you hinder the benefit of accumulating knowledge.”

Look at the Return on Effort

Over the last 20 years, I have tried most approaches. I suppose the rule that has worked best for me is,

Put another way, do what is “good enough” and get feedback to see what else you should do. Don’t waste time designing something that is more that your “customers” or “users” are asking for. Let the solution emerge as you discover what people really need. (more…)

I am interested in keeping up with teams / organizations regarding After Action Review and Facilitation. As you start out, I hope you are experiencing some success and may also be finding some challenges. Building momentum and overcoming organizational inertia certainly takes time.

I would welcome the chance to be in regular conversation with you if you are acting as a “champion” in your organisation for these disciplines. How we can learn from each other, how I can be an effective coach to you.

If you are interested, please let me know who I should work with. I will put together a distribution list that we can use to talk with each other. And I will blog about what we are finding on www.knowledgestewardship.com.

Change is hard. There is always a certain inertia to overcome. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt can keep teams rooted in the way things have always been done. And if a leader is trying to push a “big” change on the organization, watch out! There are a thousand ways to subvert it… almost as if there is an organizational immune system that seeks to eliminate changes to the status quo.

It is why I like After Action Review so well.

• Incremental. It is small. It lets change evolve naturally. And it gives quick feedback to the team about how they do their work – based on what they did, they adjust and do it again and then evaluate it again. This is the virtuous cycle we call Plan-Do-Check-Act (Adjust). Improving what you already doing is easier, faster, and meets with less resistance.
• Start where you are. The AAR lets the team start where it is, how it is already doing its work, rather than trying to switch out one process for another. Once they get in the habit of seeing their process as something that they can change, the rate of innovation becomes dramatic.
• Quick wins made visible. It creates positive change that is visible to the team. They can draw the connection between what they suggested and what was changed. And they have visibility about when changes have been implemented and who is responsible for making those changes.
• Guided. And changes are guided both by what leaders expect of the team and what the team knows and actually does.
• Builds trust. Perhaps the most important benefit of AARs is the way it helps build goodwill and trust (what you might call an organization’s “social capital” ) through small victories achieved frequently. This is so much better than large victories achieved once in a while. The team learns to learn together, to communicate effectively about “real” things, and comes to feel good about working together. It builds a bond.
• Builds capacity. Over time, the team learns to accept change, to embrace it as the way we do things. They don’t stay satisfied with the status quo. This is especially so when leaders reinforce the message. What happens is that when the innovative, breakthrough, “big” changes come along, the team has the capacity to accommodate the change. They have learned to think in a different way.
• This is the “happy discovery” that every team and every leader I have coached has made. What seems like a simplistic routine is really a foundation for change and growth and teaming.

Of course, this doesn’t happen over night. It requires intention and systematic follow up until it becomes routine.

The After Action Review (AAR) is a tool to help a team learn from their experiences in order to gain immediate, concrete improvements in performance. An “action” is any major or routine activity or event that a team of people undertakes, especially those events that they or other similar teams will likely repeat in the future. AARs are easy to do. That is what is deceptive: Teams and organisations only see the benefit when they do them repeatedly, when it becomes a habit.

Download our free AAR for Teams brochure (in English or in Spanish). (more…)

In his new book, How the Mighty have Fallen, Jim Collins talks about how companies who used to do well in improving themselves can quickly go into decline when they forget how to improve. Toyota is a case in point: They used to be so good, admired for their quality and ability to get better; now they are in desparate need for turnaround.

Faced with the need to turn around, these organisations try big breakthrough change initiatives. And when that fails to achieve results, they try something else… and then something else. Down and down.

Aiming for big breakthroughs doesn’t work. The return does not justify the expense. What is more effective is acheiving small improvements continuously. One percent improvement each week is better than 12% each quarter.  And when opportunities for big breakthrough improvements come along, the organisation is capable to integrate them. That is how Toyota used to do it and then they lost their way. (more…)