Research Brief
Principal
Researcher(s):
Ed Moffat

Advisor:
David Smulders

Instructor:
Beth Larcombe

Research Field:
Emergency
Management Division
Program:
Bachelor of
Emergency and
Security Management

Course:
Capstone: ESMS
4900

Funding Sources
N/A: Course-based
Project.

After-Action Reviews-Can they be used
effectively for learning purposes?
After-Action Reviews have been in use for over 40 years, first by the US
Military, and then adopted by many organizations or agencies to improve
capabilities of emergency responders to reflect, act and learn in real
time. The purpose of the after-action review is to determine what went
well, what did not go well, where are the gaps? And what can be done
differently next time to improve performance for response to realincidents or exercises to minimize avoidable deaths or negative
economic and social consequences.
The emergency Management Division (EMD) of the Justice Institute of
BC is interested in determining how after-action reviews are conducted in
Canada following disasters including the rationale for processes. The
information gathered on after-action reviews will be utilized to support
further research on this topic as well as support curriculum development
in the JIBC Certificate of Emergency Management program.
Researching peer-reviewed publications that focused on the purpose of
the after-action review determined that they are distinct from debriefs in
that they begin with a clear comparison of intended versus actual results
achieved (Dufty 2013). After-action reviews need to be effective in
conveying the information from events and exercises to improve “best
practice”, otherwise they become problematic and will reinforce a
narrative that may not be accurate, and may lead to group think (Allen,
Reiter-Palmon, Crowe & Scott, 2018).
After-action reviews are vital to the success of future events. The
facilitating of the process in performing after-action reviews needs to be
led by competent leaders who can lead participants through an open
discussion that reflects the planned goals, and successes, as well as
areas in need for improvement for future events responses. The
performing of after-action reviews is not being utilized to its full extent as
lessons learned and emergency management are doomed to repeat the
same challenges over and over again; disaster after disaster. Further
research is required on after-action reviews within emergency
management to determine the best methods of conducting and reporting
as well as when and how they should be performed to improve response
to events.

JIBC Research Brief
Structured Abstract
Introduction: After action reviews, also known by other terms, are a
detailed critical summary of a past event conducted and documented for the
purpose of re-assessing decisions and considering alternatives for future
reference. The usage of after-action reviews (AARs) began over 40 years by
the US military, and are now being used by those responsible for emergency
preparedness and response recovery to convey important lessons learned to
promote individual and organizational learning post event(s). With the number
of disaster events increasing along with the complexity and magnitude of such
events, how can after-action reviews be performed in a timely fashion to
convey lessons learned and implemented for improving response in the next
event.
The Emergency Management Division (EMD) of the Justice Institute of BC is
interested in determining how after action reviews are conducted in Canada
following disasters including rationale for these processes. The information
gathered on after action reviews in this study will be utilized to support further
research on this topic as well as support curriculum development in the JIBC
Certificate of Emergency Management program.

Methods: Literature selected for use within this research paper included
peer-reviewed articles, thesis papers, actual after-action reviews and policies.
Articles were selected for their focus on lessons learned and best practices
encountered first within Canada, the Unites States and then Australia as they
have similar experiences with emergency management. Additionally, literature
on a variety of disaster events such as Hurricane Katrina (2005), BP Oil Spill
(2010) and Wildland-Urban fires.

Results/Findings: The usage of after-action reviews are mandated by
many governmental organizations such as the Canadian government,
Homeland Security and FEMA in the United States, however, those
responsible for responding to events do not always follow the requirement to
submit documents for review. The terms after-action reviews as well as afteraction reports are used interchangeably and may be causing confusion as
after-action reviews need to be conducted as soon as possible following the
event and attended by those who responded. The after-action report is the
final report which encapsulates all of the incident data that is produced in a
document for action by senior leadership. The after-action review needs to be
conducted by a strong leader who can create an open, honest and safe
environment in which people can speak honestly and with confidence.

JIBC Research Brief
Recommendations: AARs need to be performed consistently after each
event and as close to the event as possible to ensure that lessons learned are
adopted for the next event. To be effective as a lessons learned approach for
organizational readiness for future events standardized forms as well as a
centralized repository need to be developed to ensure sharing of information
across organizations to instill a learning environment. Further research needs
to be conducted to determine how effective AARs are utilized within the
Canadian context to determine best methods as well as when they should be
performed to improve overall emergency management response to events so
that the same issues are not re-occurring time and time again.

References:
Allen, J.A., Reitman-Palmon, R., Crowe, J., and Scott, C. (2018) Debriefs:
Teams learning from doing in context. American Psychologist 73(4)
504-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000246
Dufty, N. (2013). Evaluating emergency management after an event: gaps and suggestions.
Australian Journal of Emergency Management 28(4). 15-19 retrieved from
https://works.bepress.com/neil_dufty/31/