Talk:After-action review

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

there are after action reviews that take place in Knowledge management circles as well. maybe expand this topic to include it? www.signetconsulting.com is a good source of info on non-military before and after action reviews.

Anglicisms

There was a comment on the page to the effect that spellings should be left British and not American English and referring editors to discussion here. Removed, as there is no actual discussion here, and it seems bizarre that a US Army practice should only be discussed using British English. -218.1.113.253 (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal vs. Informal

Based on http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/bm~doc/the-after-action-review-p.ppt it appears that the distinction between formal and informal AARs has been dropped:

Experience in the employment of AAR has resulted in the recommendation that the terms Formal and Informal AAR be dropped from the terminology of this subject. It was found that the distinctions that were made between both types of AAR were misleading and caused confusion.

AAR will not be identified by type. The duration and resources allocated to an AAR will be based on the complexity of the learning objectives to be addressed, the size of the audience and the time and resources available

This section should be edited to reflect this change.

Peter K. Sheerin 22:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K. Sheerin (talk • contribs)

Merge discussion

Suggest to merge with After Action Report. As these two are used synonymously in most circles, one article would be better suited. Chairborneranger (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be combined. Some experts on After Action Reviews suggest using the term Report moves away from the spirit of an after action which should be tightly focused on improving team processes rather than creating a report to sit on a shelf with little benefit (see https://hbr.org/2023/01/a-better-approach-to-after-action-reviews). Tenbsmith (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]