Evaluations

OUTLINES

After Action Review (AAR)

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-action_review

• What is it?
  • 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
• What is it used for?
  • originally developed by the U.S. Army and many other non-US organizations.
  • In Business
    • as a knowledge management tool
    • a way to build a culture of accountability.
• How is it Conducted?
  • occurs within a cycle of establishing the leader's intent, planning, preparation, action and review.
  • 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
  • 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.
• AAR Vs Debrief Vs Post Mortem
  • AAR Vs Debrief: begins with a clear comparison of intended vs. actual results achieved.
  • AAR Vs post-mortem: tight focus on participant's own action - learning from the review is taken forward by the participants. Rec
  • Remmendations for others are not produced.
• Questions to Ask
  • - What was supposed to happen?
  • - What did happen?
  • - What are some improves?
  • - What are some sustains?
  • - What can be done to improve the training next time?

From KStoolkit

http://www.kstoolkit.org/After+Action+Review

• What is it?
  • A simple process used by a team to capture the lessons learned from past successes and failures, with the goal of improving future performance.
  • An opportunity for a team to reflect on a project, activity, event or task so that they can do better the next time.
  • Carried out with an open spirit and no intent to blame.
    • The American Army used the phrase "leave your rank at the door" to optimize learning in this process. Some groups document the review results; others prefer to emphasize the no-blame culture by having no written record.
  • a form of group reflection; participants review what was intended, what actually happened, why it happened and what was learned. One member of the group facilitates, capturing results on a flip chart or in a document.
  • Can be short, frequent group process checks, or more extended, in-depth explorations.
  • Can be conducted in person, on the telephone or even online, either asynchronously (meaning you don't have to be online at the same time with email or web forums) or synchronously
• When to use:
  • During and after a project to reveal what has been learned, reassess direction, and review both successes and challenges.
  • During and after an event.
  • in the course of a project to learn while doing
• How to Use: Learning While Doing – Time to Reflect (From Chris Collison's Learning to Fly
  • Hold the AAR immediately. Whilst all of the participants are still available, and their memories are fresh. Learning can then be applied right away, even on the next day.
  • Create the right climate. One of Openness and commitment to learning. Everyone should participate in an atmosphere free from the concept of seniority or rank. AARs are learning events rather than critiques. They certainly should not be treated as personal performance evaluation.
  • Appoint a facilitator. Not to ‘have’ answers, but to help the team to ‘learn’ answers. People must be drawn out, both for their own learning and the group’s learning.
  • Ask ‘what was supposed to happen?’ The facilitator can divide the event into discrete activities, each of which had (or should have had) an identifiable objective and plan of action. The discussion begins with the first activity: ‘What was supposed to happen?’
  • Ask ‘what actually happened?’ The team must understand and agree facts about what happened. The aim is to identify a problem not a culprit.
  • Compare the plan with reality. The real learning begins as the team of teams compares the plan to what actually happened in reality and determines ‘Why were there differences?’ and ‘What did we learn?’ Identify and discuss successes and shortfalls. Put in place action plans to sustain the successes and to improve upon the shortfalls.
  • Record the key points. Recording the key elements of an AAR clarifies what happened and compares it to what was supposed to happen. It facilitates sharing of learning experiences within the team and provides the basis for a broader learning programme in the organisation.
• Examples of AAR
  • Joint AAR by CARE and WVI, with OXFAM GB and CRS, April 2005.

Post Implementation Review PIR

From

GUIDES, RESOURCES and TOOLS

• Toolkits and Guides
  • Tools for Knowledge and Learning: A Guide for Development and Humanitarian Organisations by Evaulation.org: Sharing Information for Better Evaluation - http://betterevaluation.org/resources/guides/Tools_for_knowledge_learning
  • Guide to the After Action Review: http://www.queri.research.va.gov/ciprs/projects/after_action_review.pdf - With Report Template
  • Post-Mortem Meeting Agenda and Minutes Template by Oliver F. Lehmann Project Management Training in MSWord - http://cmcoutperform.com/post-mortem-meeting