In one minute
Compare intended and actual results, explain gaps and assign changes for the next cycle.
A facilitated review reconstructs intent, observation, causes, what to sustain and what to change. Its output is a small set of owned, testable changes, not a blame list.
The problem it addresses
Teams repeat a hard event because lessons remain anecdotes without an owner or follow-up.
A flood response delivered supplies on time overall, yet two remote districts received the wrong medication. Dispatch logs and field reports disagree.
When to use it
- Use After Action Review when teams repeat a hard event because lessons remain anecdotes without an owner or follow-up.
- The team can examine: The original objective, timeline, evidence, participants and authority to change practice.
- A relevant situation is: A flood response delivered supplies on time overall, yet two remote districts received the wrong medication. Dispatch logs and field reports disagree.
When not to use it
Do not use it to replace evidence, accountable judgement or affected people's participation.
Running a ceremonial meeting with no behavioural change, or asking harmed participants to speak without protection.
Inputs required
The original objective, timeline, evidence, participants and authority to change practice.
Step-by-step process
1. Bound the decision and name its owner.
Write the scope, decision owner and people who can veto or revise the result before starting the workshop.
2. Collect the necessary evidence and affected perspectives.
Collect and date the necessary evidence: The original objective, timeline, evidence, participants and authority to change practice.
3. State what was meant to happen and why.
Record the original objective and expected sequence before judging the result with hindsight.
4. Reconstruct what actually happened from several sources.
Build a timeline from logs and several participants, marking unknowns rather than filling them with guesses.
5. Explain differences without collapsing to blame.
Separate observations, contributing conditions and interpretations; ask what made each action reasonable at the time.
6. Choose practices to sustain and changes to test.
Identify one practice to keep and one change to test, including safeguards against unintended harm.
7. Assign owners, dates and evidence for the next review.
Assign an owner and due date to each experiment and state what evidence the next review must inspect.
8. Record the output, next test and review trigger.
Store the artifact with its evidence links, owner, bounded next test and date or trigger for review.
AI automation lens
AI may sort authorised notes and expose missing evidence. It must not invent observations, silently decide for affected people or present a generated map as validated.
Visual model
Text alternative: State what was meant to happen and why; Reconstruct what actually happened from several sources; Explain differences without collapsing to blame; Choose practices to sustain and changes to test; Assign owners, dates and evidence for the next review.
Interactive example
Scenario: A flood response delivered supplies on time overall, yet two remote districts received the wrong medication. Dispatch logs and field reports disagree.
Worked answer: Reconcile records with frontline accounts, preserve the effective routes, test a medication verification handoff and review the next exercise.
Facilitation notes
Record disagreements before synthesising; ask whose evidence is missing; state who may revise the result.
Expected output
- An inspectable decision artifact, its assumptions and evidence, a responsible owner, a bounded next test and a review date.
- Assign owners, dates and evidence for the next review.
- A named owner, test and review date.
Common mistakes
Running a ceremonial meeting with no behavioural change, or asking harmed participants to speak without protection.
Quality checklist
- The decision and system boundary are explicit.
- Affected people and alternative accounts are included.
- Each important claim has a source or is marked as an assumption.
- An owner, safeguard and disconfirming signal are named.
Template
Knowledge check
Question: What mistake would undermine this method in the scenario?
Answer: Running a ceremonial meeting with no behavioural change, or asking harmed participants to speak without protection.
Related tools
References
- After Action Review — method source (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-09-28.
- Independent practice reference (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-09-28.
Method profile
The method structures a discussion and a test; it does not establish causal proof or guarantee success.