AAR
The facilitator, along with the participants, reviews what was supposed to happen. This review is based on the intent, objectives and standards. This information is usually found in the Recommended Actions in the Use Case/Use Case Appendix, Blue Team Case Workflow, and Client Case Workflow.
The facilitator and participants determine what actually occurred during the incident or project. The leader attempts to gather as many views or perspectives (OPFOR, manager, analyst, engineer, etc) as feasible and possible. This helps to establish a common understanding of the operation/event. Leaders then understand the complexity of an event and work to solve complex, ill-defined problems quickly.
Participants then establish the strong and weak points of their performance based on the commander’s intent and performance measures. The facilitator guides discussions to ensure maximum input that is operationally sound and relevant to the incident.
The facilitator guides the unit in self-determining how the task(s) might be performed more effectively in the future. The unit identifies problems and provides solutions as well as identifies who is responsible for making the recommended changes.Additionally, the facilitator guides the discussion to determine if there is a moreeffective way to train the tasks to achieve the commander’s intent.
- Conducted during or immediately after each event
- Focused on intent, objectives and standards
- Focus is on team member, manager, and company performance
- Involves all participants in the discussion
- Uses open-ended questions
- Encourages initiative and innovation in finding more effective ways to achieve standards and meet objectives and intent
- Determines strengths and weaknesses
- Links performance to subsequent training
-
Review what was supposed to happen:
- State the objectives and standards
- Review OPFOR (if used) mission and purpose
- Review company mission, intent and concept of operations
-
Review what happened for a particular event (all levels). A technique is to approach chronologically, eg:
- Review actions before first detection
- Review report of first detection or contact
- Review reaction to detection or contact
- Review events during engagement
-
Review what went right and wrong (all levels):
- Review extent to which objectives were met
- Review extent that the intent was met
- Have participants summarize the major learning points
- Identify training deficiencies
- Identify team's ability to perform task and meet intent
- Identify safety risks and measures employed to mitigate the risks
-
Determine how the event or task should be done next time
- Identify if retraining should occur
- Identify the conditions to modify
- Identify which tasks to retrain to meet the intent
- Identify a more effective way to meet the intent
- Everyone must participate if they have an insight, observation, or question which will help the team identify and correct deficiencies or sustain strengths. The AAR is a dynamic, candid, professional discussion of training that focuses on team performance measured against the task standards.
- The AAR is not a critique. No one, regardless of rank, position, or strength of personality, has all of the information or answers. AARs maximize training benefits by allowing members to learn from each other.
- The AAR does not evaluate success or failure. There are always weaknesses to improve and strengths to sustain.
- Reinforce the fact that it is permissible to disagree respectfully.
- Focus on learning and encourage people to give honest opinions.
- Use open-ended and leading questions to guide the discussion of member, manager, and team performance.
- Enter the discussion only when necessary.