Running head: AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

After-Action Reviews - Can They be Used Effectively for Learning Purposes?
Ed Moffat
Emergency Management Division
Justice Institute of British Columbia
March 24, 2019
Instructor- Beth Larcombe
Advisor- David Smulders
February 24, 2019

1

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

2

Abstract
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 the learning capabilities of emergency
responders to reflect, act and learn in real time. The after-action review is known by many
different names and may actually be a tool that is under-utilized to convey important lessons
learned as it appears that many recommendations are either being repeated or modified in the
next event as they have not been institutionalized. After-action reviews are utilized by many
organizations in emergency management as a way to promote a lessons-learned approach to
promote organizational learning. In the realm of emergency management and preparedness the
usage of after-action reviews is a structured review of the following: 1) what went well? 2) What
did not go well? 3) Where are the gaps? and 4) what can be done differently next time to
improve performance? This paper will examine how after-action reviews are conducted
following disasters to ensure that lessons-learned and the responses to real-incidents or exercises
are implemented to minimize avoidable deaths or negative economic and social consequences.
Keywords: After-action Reviews, After-action Reports, Emergency Management,
Disaster Preparedness, Lessons Learned

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2
Background and Purpose .................................................................................................................4
Methodology ........................................................................................................................5
List of key words and subject terms………………………………………………………6
Final Selection of Literature ……………………………………………………………...7
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................................12
Conducting AARs ..............................................................................................................13
Effectiveness of AARs………………………………………………………………….. 14
Analysis of Two Canadian AARs ……………………………………………………….15
Critical Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………17
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….20

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

4

Background and Purpose
After-Action Reviews (AARs), 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 AARs began over 40 years ago 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. What are
after-action reviews and how are they conducted post event? What processes are currently
utilized to document what happened, why it happened and how it can be done better for the next
event? This paper will examine what are after-action reviews? How after-actions reviews are
conducted to ensure that lessons-learned are conveyed in a meaningful manner? What standard is
there for AARs so all information presented can be easily disseminated to all parties that need to
know?
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
resulting 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.

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

5

Methodology
Search criteria utilized to identify relevant literature for study were difficult to pinpoint as
there are many ways to describe after-action reviews (AARs) as terminology used varies
between organizations as well as businesses who conduct them. Phrases such as after-action
reviews or after-action reports were the most prevalent terms used; however other terms such as
team huddles (used in medical facilities) as well as debriefs, critiques, post-mortems and hot
washes are also utilized which complicated the search. Determination of the definition of afteraction reviews shows that it is different from after-action reports. The after-action review is
conducted and participated in by responders immediately following the response to an
emergency whereas, the after-action report is generated and released weeks later, once the
incident data and review data are synthesized for use as a training tool to achieve
recommendations for best practice. When the term emergency management was incorporated
into the search the results were narrowed and even further reduced when the term disaster
preparedness was utilized. All of the terms were utilized within quotations to improve the
chances of narrowing the search to existing literature within the Emergency Management
studies.
Resources used for the search included Google Scholar, JIBC Library, and Google.
Google Scholar was the primary source and netted the best relevant results for evidence of
effective usage of AARs, as well as when and how they should be performed. The JIBC Library
was mainly used to obtain articles through Google Scholar where payment was required to
access them. Google was utilized to download relevant PDF’s of articles as well as relevant
media sources; along with JIBC Library that were relevant to the topic.

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

6

List of Keywords and Subject Terms
Keywords: After-action Reviews, After-action Reports, Emergency Management, Disaster
Preparedness, Lessons Learned
The list below is representative of the samples of terms used to focus the subject matter.
The number of results is represented in parenthesis received from Google Scholar. The results
from utilizing the JIBC Library are represented in [ ].
•

After-action reviews (2,050,000) [37,039]

•

After-action Reports ( 3,650,000) [59,309]

•

After-action reviews and Emergency Management (1,260,000) [1,116]

•

After-action reports and Emergency Management (1, 840,000) [1,226]

•

After-action reviews and Emergency Management or Disaster Preparedness(177, 000)
[1,157]

•

After-action reports and Emergency Management or Disaster Preparedness (433,000)
[1263]

•

“After-action reviews” and “ Emergency Management” or “Disaster Preparedness” (603)
[10]

•

“After-action reports” and “Emergency Management” or “Disaster” (1,680) [85]

•

“After-action reviews” or “After action reports” and “Emergency Management” or
“Disaster Preparedness” (135) [1335]
For this literature review, 30 articles were initially selected for abstract review including

two actual after-action reports that reviewed the Lesser Slave Lake Wildfire (2011) and

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

7

Wood Buffalo Wildfire (2016) from Alberta. These articles were selected for their direct
relevance to after-action reviews in Canada and were analyzed to determine if lessonslearned had been adopted for the latter and to determine if they were implemented and if not
why not.
Final Selection of Literature
At the conclusion of reviewing the initial article abstracts, the final number of selected
articles was reduced to 20, which was further reduced to 15 after examining the content to
determine relevance to the chosen subject. The final articles selected for full review and use for
research was limited to peer reviewed papers that studied the purpose of performing AARs, the
challenges of performing AARs post event as well as the relevance of the lessons learned being
incorporated in future training exercises and events.
Although the initial intention was to limit the research of articles specifically to Canada,
this was not feasible as the writer was only able to locate two articles that were Canadian based.
The search for existing articles was expanded next to the United States and then Australia as they
have similar experiences with emergency management as well as a variety of disaster events
such as Hurricane Katrina (2005), BP Oil Spill (2010), and Wildland- Urban fires.
The articles selected for literature review were chosen for their focus on performing afteraction reviews as well as the structure and what should be included when AARs are conducted
and when they should be conducted. The following six peer reviewed articles were selected for
review:
1) Make no mistake: the effectiveness of the lessons-learned approach to emergency
management in Canada, by Adam Rostis, published in 2007. The article questions the

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

8

usage of after-action reviews and the level of commitment to adopting a learning
environment for emergency management professionals within Canada. A qualitative and
exploratory survey was utilized and sent to provincial and territory emergency
management agencies in Canada to determine what type of knowledge management was
prevalent and being utilized to improve practice. This is important to understand the
usage of AARs within the Canadian context and how they are utilized to convey lessons
learned in Canada.
Rostis indicates that the results from his study indicated that organizations
dedicate non-financial resources to detecting and capturing knowledge from outside
organizations. Exercises or simulations are knowledge management activities insofar as
they are used to proactively acquire knowledge about how the organisation will respond
to situations that they may not have encountered (Rostis, 2017, p. 207). Additionally, in a
successful lessons-learned process, all those involved are responsible for learning (Rostis,
2017, p. 207).
2) When will we learn? The after action review, lessons learned and the next steps in
training and educating the Homeland Security enterprise for the 21st century, by Jeffrey
Kaliner, published 2013. In his thesis, Kaliner states, post exercise activity is not
practiced regularly and after-action reviews (AARs) are not being distributed or
implemented effectively. The knowledge that is gained from an AAR is not being
transferred and applied which means that the AAR is not serving the intended purpose.
This article is important as it questions why AARs are being used in the United States if
the information is not being utilized to increase learning.

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

9

According to Kaliner, the need to learn both during and after a crisis suggests that
the traditional way of learning reflected by the current use of AAR must be re-examined
(Kaliner, 2013, p5). Kaliner also states that most AAR practices are characterized by a
facilitative technique that relies upon three or four open-ended questions (Kaliner, 2013,
p14). Kaliner also states that what is known basically on this subject is that currently
prescribed theoretical underpinnings have not been adequately expressed, explored, or
assessed ( Kaliner, 2013, p21).
3) Near-real-time analysis of publicly communicated disaster response information by T.
Girard, F. Wenzel, B. Khazai, T. Kunz-Plapp, J. E. Daniell and S. A. Brink, published in
2014. This article is important as to the when an after-action review is to be conducted
and the information that should be included. The authors advocate a methodology by
doing an after-action review near-real-time analysis as it is based on information that is
current while the response is still in operation. This makes the feedback more pertinent
as well as keeps it fresh in the minds for those that are participating in the response.
According to the authors the quality of response is a large factor in its ability to
limit the impacts of the disaster on the local population (Girard, Wenzel, Kunz-Plapp,
Daniel & Brink, 2014, p. 165). A common method for analyzing disaster response is to
carry out post-response evaluations, often referred to as “lesson-learned” or “after-action”
reports. The main purpose of such reports is to identify what changes should be
implemented in order to improve future responses (Girard et al., 2014, p.166). A valuable
strength of post response evaluation is that it is based on actual disaster events (Girard et
al., 2014, p. 166).

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

10

4) Use of after-action reports (AARs) to promote organizational and systems learning in
emergency preparedness by E. Savoia, F. Agboola and P.D. Biddinger published 2012.
This article indicates that many health and healthcare organizations use formal
knowledge management practices to identify and disseminate experiences. Emergency
preparedness uses the lessons-learned approach on the basis that learning from past
experiences improves practice and minimizes impact on economic and social
consequences, including death.
According to the authors, the lessons learned approach is one such example of
knowledge management practice applied to the wider concept of organizational learning
(Savoia, Agboola, & Biddinger, 2012, p. 2950). Also stated in the article is that despite
voluminous attempts to document and learn from prior emergency preparedness system
response failures, the challenges experienced in planning and responding to disasters
seem to be “learned” over and over again in disaster after disaster (Savoia et al., 2012, p.
2950). The authors also state that if the identified insights and experiences have recurring
themes across different types of threats and across multiple systems, they also present a
direct mandate for responders, organizations, and systems to address challenges and
create a requirement to test them in future exercises to ensure that planned improvements
are successful (Savoia et al., 2012, p. 2959).
5) Debriefs: teams learning from doing in context, by J.A. Allen, R. Reier-Palmon, J. Crowe
and C. Scott, published in 2018. This article introduces different concepts in regards to
different names for after-action reviews including critiques, after event reviews, huddles,
post-mortems and debriefs. To be effective debriefs need to identify ways to improve and
ensure a supportive learning environment.

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

11

According to the authors several meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of
debriefs, and they have all concluded that having a debrief results in improved learning
and team performance (Allen, Reier-Palmon, Crowe, & Scott, 2018, p508). To ensure
effective facilitation that is less dependent on the skills of team members, most selfguided debriefs utilize some form of an aid such as checklist, list of questions, and
detailed instructions and are as effective as facilitator-led debriefs (Allen et al., 2018,
p508). Debriefs are a meaningful type of workplace intervention, deployed across
contexts for a variety of purposes, and their effectiveness is essential to the
accomplishment of the purpose identified (Allen et al., 2018, p509).
6) Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis, by S.I
Tannenbaum and C. P Cerasoli published in 2013. To have an effective debrief there are
three criteria that make it useful. The first being facilitation, second is structure and the
third is multimedia. This is important for the research on AAR as it discusses different
methods of performing the AAR and how it should be conducted overall to facilitate
learning.
The authors discuss that debriefs are a potentially powerful yet simple tool to
improve the effectiveness of teams and individuals but research and theory have been
scattered across multiple disciplines (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013, p240). The authors
also argue that despite more than 30 empirical studies that examined debriefing, no
quantitative integration of research existed with which to gauge debriefing efficacy
(Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013, p240). Their findings indicate that aligning participants,
intent, and measurement yield the greatest effects (Tannenbaum& Cerasoli, 2013, p240).

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

12

Discussion of Findings
After-action reviews were first introduced 40 years ago by the US military and have been
adopted by many organizations to improve the learning capabilities after an event as well as to
improve performance during future emergencies. AARs are used as a tool by organizations to
learn but they may not be practiced regularly and that the lessons learned from the completed
AAR’s are not distributed or implemented effectively (Kaliner, 2013, p. 1). The lessons learned
play an important (if not vital) role in emergency management and organizational agility
(Friesen, Kelsey & Legere, 2017, p. 219). For emergency preparedness, the lessons-learned
approach stands on the assumption that learning from experience, whether it be our own or
others, and whether it be from real events or simulations, improves practice and minimizes
avoidable deaths and negative economic and social consequences of disasters (Savoia, Agboola,
& Biddinger, 2012, p. 2950). It is important to understand the role of the after-action review so
that emergency managers can implement new strategies and solutions to previously identified
problems to continue being prepared and adapting to what are normally fast changing situations.
Instead of producing static knowledge assets to file away in a management report or repository,
AARs generate raw material that feeds back into the execution cycle (Darling, Parry, & Moore,
2005). There is a profound and distinct difference between after-action reviews and after-action
reports. After-action reviews are performed immediately after an emergency whereas the afteraction report is generated and released weeks later, once the incident data and review data are

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

13

amalgamated to use as a training tool to achieve recommendations for best practice. Agencies
that treat AARs as after-action reports instead of after-action reviews tend to not learn as they do
not have a personal stake in the process and may only participate as they have been told to or out
of loyalty (Darling et al, 2005).
Conducting AARs
Organizational learning is described as a process of strategic organizational renewal
involving intuition, interpretation, integration and institutionalism (Rotsis, 2007, p. 199). As
such, it is important to note that within Canada the lessons-learned approach is the primary
method used for knowledge management. The main purpose of performing AARs is to identify
what changes should be implemented in order to improve future responses (Girard, Khazai &
Brink 2014, p. 166). After-action reviews are distinct from debriefs in that they begin with a
clear comparison of intended versus actual results achieved (Dufty 2013, p. 15).What appears to
be in debate is when the AAR should be performed. Traditional wisdom has been after the event
or exercise is when an after-action review should be performed, however according to Girard,
Khazi and Brink (2014), the time-lag between a disaster and when a post-event report is issued
therefore presents an opportunity for other forms of analysis to be carried out (p 166). Girard,
Khazi and Brink, argue that many of the issues raised post event can be identified within days
rather than months after an event when a full report is usually completed (Girard et al., 2014, p.
167).
After-action reviews need to be effective in conveying the information from security
events and exercises to improve “best practice”, otherwise they become problematic as they will
reinforce a narrative of the event that perhaps may not be accurate, may diffuse responsibility for

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

14

the problems contained therein, and may ultimately lead to groupthink (Allen, Reiter-Palmon,
Crowe, & Scott, 2018, p. 508). To ensure the AARs are effective, Allen et al advocate that a 12
step process should be used to ensure effectiveness as follows: 1) Debriefs must be diagnostic
(identify specific ways to improve), 2) Ensure that the organization creates a supportive learning
environment for debriefs, 3) Encourage team leaders to be attentive during the emergency
regarding what they may want to discuss later, 4) Educate team leaders on the science of leading
team debriefs (facilitation process), 5) Ensure that team members feel comfortable in debriefs, 6)
Focus on critical performance issues during the debrief, 7) Describe specific teamwork
interactions and processes involved in the team performance, 8) Support feedback with objective
data, 9) Provide outcome feedback later (ie. not during the debrief) and less frequently than
process feedback, 10) Provide both individual and team oriented feedback at appropriate times,
11) Shorten time delay between task performance and debriefing, and finally 12) Record
conclusions made and goals set during debrief and follow-up.
To conduct a successful AAR, a strong leader is needed who can create open, honest and
safe environments in which people can speak honestly and with confidence; AARs should not be
undertaken to simply fix problems or allocate blame (Cronin and Andrews, 2009, p. 32). Three
characteristics that are widely thought to improve the quality of debriefs are facilitation, structure
and multimedia aids; although the usage of multimedia may not show a meaningful improvement
in effectiveness (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013, p. 240).
Effectiveness of AARs
The effectiveness of after-action reviews has been questioned as previous incidents issues
and recommendations have not been actioned as agencies are not event taking the time to elicit

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

15

and capture the knowledge that might be gleaned from an after-action review, and they are
having trouble transferring and applying this knowledge for future events (Kaliner, 2013, p. 1)
Planning to perform an AAR is absolutely critical to the effectiveness of AARs (Bryan, 2007, p.
45). According to Knox (2013), in Analyzing after-action reports from Hurricane Andrew and
Katrina: Repeated, modified, and newly created recommendations, the issues that were identified
after Hurricane Andrew should have increased the mitigation, preparation, response and recovery
efforts in subsequent disasters (p. 160). However, the same issues that were identified in
Hurricane Andrew were still occurring in the same type of disaster years later in Hurricane
Katrina. After-action reviews are meant to instill an atmosphere of learning among individuals
and organizations however, researchers are unable to answer basic questions about how
individuals learn during exercises or the actual AAR process (Kaliner, 2013, p. 2). This was also
evident in reviewing two finalized reports prepared by Klynveld Peat Marwick and Goerdeler,
(KPMG) after the 2011 and 2016 wildfires that occurred in Alberta. Issues that were identified
had not been fully implemented in the five years between the two events. There were several that
had been implemented and completed but many had not been. If performing an AAR is not
planned then this usually does not happen, according to Dufty (2013), post event emergency
management evaluations tend to be done on an ad hoc basis because they are not an integral part
of agency preparedness planning and are open to the vagaries of funding and political will (p.
19). This finding is supported by Kaliner (2013) as their thesis paper found that FEMA does not
follow its own program policy which stipulates AARs are to be conducted at or near the
conclusion of emergency or disaster operations (p. 9). Reasons for the lapse in practice vary, and
include budget, timing and personnel issues (Kaliner, 2013, p. 10).
Analysis of two Canadian AARs

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

16

In May 2011, Alberta experienced a wildfire that started burning near Canyon Creek,
Widewater and Wagner. A second wildfire started near the town of Slave Lake and a third
wildfire started approximately 15 kilometers north of town (Kulig & Watson, 2015, p. 4).
Approximately 8,000 residents were displaced when wind gusts of about 100 km/hour forced
them to flee after the fires pushed past the barriers. The Slave Lake wildfire of 2011 was the
most catastrophic event that the Albertan province had experienced to date. In 2016, Alberta
experienced another major forest fire which began Southwest of Fort McMurray and displaced
88,000 residents (KPMG, 2016). The Fort McMurray wildfire of 2016 was now the largest
disaster that was experienced by the province of Alberta to date.
A review of two after-action reviews, also known as post incident assessment reports,
that were written by Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) shows that lessons learned in
2011 were not completely adopted for the event in 2016. The areas that still needed to be
implemented were the following:
1) Strengthening emergency management across all stakeholders
2) Strengthening initiatives for Community Emergency Management Program (CEMP),
indigenous programs and Alberta Environmental Management Panel (AEMP),
3) Enhance programs, resources and initiatives for inter-municipal cooperation
4) Work with local communities to improve preparedness
5) Improve provincial capacity and infrastructure to manage personal information during an
emergency
6) Improve local and provincial preparedness for the possibility of evacuation
7) Ensure Incident Management teams are available to quickly deploy

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

17

8) Fully implement Incident Command System (ICS) so roles and mandates are firmly
established
9) Develop an approach for Government of Alberta to coordinate across ministries.
10) Build capacity to ensure timely distribution of funds, effective financial management
11) Create guidelines to plan and execute re-entry following an evacuation
12) Develop a comprehensive and coordinated approach for funding of disaster recovery
plans
13) Develop and implement a province-wide approach to manage donations following a
disaster.
The reports from 2012 and 2016 were very informative and lengthy in evaluation and suggests
that Alberta has a strong foundation for effective emergency management, and in many ways
their response met or exceeded standards and leading practices from around the globe (KPMG,
2012, p. 1). The report for 2016 states that implementation will require the AEMA to plan and
evaluate any changes to make sure that satisfactory results are realized. (KPMG, 2016, p. i)
Based on the analysis of the two reports from KPMG it is unclear as to why the
recommendations from 2011 were not fully implemented by 2016; however, it would appear that
although there was support for the implementation of the recommendations made, time, money
and lack of resources may have played a role in not having the ability to fully implement the
recommendations from 2011 prior to the event of 2016.
Critical Analysis and Recommendations
There is a distinct difference between the two terms after-action reviews and after-action
reports. After-action reviews are performed by individuals within an organization to determine

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

18

what the intended accomplishment was, what actually occurred, what might have caused the
event to occur as it did, articulates lessons learned, and finally establishes expectations for the
next event. The after-action report is the final document which is created once all of the incident
data is combined with review data and produced in a document by senior leadership to be
actioned. Improving emergency management response to events is vital as the complexity,
magnitude and the number of events is increasing. Although after-action reviews are supposed to
be a lessons learned approach which is to be shared among agencies as well as government
departments, recommendations made are not being actioned which hampers future mitigation
strategies. Based on the articles reviewed, the usage of AARs 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 such documents for review. The performing of AARs are a post event
activity and may only be completed when government inquiries are demanded by agencies as
well as citizens.
After-action reviews go by many other names depending on which organization is
performing them and this may be confusing. Some of the names include after-action reports,
debriefs, critiques, post-mortems as well as huddles and hot-washes. A consistent definition for
the term of after-action reviews needs to be established to ensure consistency of its application
across organizations as well as agencies responsible for emergency management. When an
effective AAR is performed and the lessons learned have been adopted then and only then will
the learning improve disaster response and resiliency. According to the majority of articles
reviewed many organizations repeat the same issues over and over again as they have not
adopted the recommended lessons learned from previous events. According to Savoia et al.

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

19

(2012), there are common challenges that have consistently emerged during responses to
different types of incidents that do not need to be learned again but rather they need to be
addressed in the planning, testing, measuring and implementation cycle of emergency
management (p. 2961). If lessons learned are not being adopted into new policies, procedures or
response plans then the effectiveness of the whole process needs to be further researched to
determine why so the same identified issues are not repeated. The closer to the event that an
analysis is conducted of what the achievements were as well as understand the deficiencies by
the organizations that responded to the event then the better the review will be. If near-real-time
analysis, as advocated by Girard et al (2014), is used, then the likelihood of incomplete or
inaccurate information moving forward into policy and process is diminished, and practice
deficiencies identified can be addressed quickly. The performing of near-real-time assessment
during the event will improve the learning capabilities of the organization and agencies
responding and the issues identified in post response reports can be identified and potentially
actioned during future response phases (Girard et. al, 2014, p. 166).
The performing of after-action reviews is vital to the success of future events. As such it
is important that those facilitating the process are trained and competent to lead participants
through an open discussion that reflect on the planned goals, and successes, as well as areas in
need for improvement for future responses. Currently most after-action reviews, when they
occur, are performed after time has elapsed post event. This makes it difficult to elicit and
capture the necessary data as it becomes more problematic to remember what occurred
accurately the longer between the actual event and when a review is actually held. The original
design of the after-action review was to receive instant feedback on one specific or particular
action and when you are able to interrupt the event so it can be analyzed, discussed and then

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

20

acted upon. In emergency management, when an event occurs there are many actions taking
place all at once which may hamper the ability to stop, analyze, discuss and correct which makes
it complex and the terminology of after-action review may actually be a misnomer and/ or
misleading as time elapses between the actual event and a discussion is held.
Reviewing and analysing the existing literature it was difficult to determine the best
practice of how an AAR is to be written, supported by Friesen, Kelsey & Legere (2017), who
were able to determine that there is a lack of standardization of policies surrounding AAR/After
Incident Reports, and the requirement for collection, analysis, sharing and archiving of the
information (p. 222). By not having a standard way of documenting after-action reviews and the
lessons learned emergency management practitioners are prone to make the same mistakes event
after event.
Conclusion
The search of existing literature shows that the usage of after-action reviews is a good
tool to perform “lessons- learned” knowledge management after an event. This literature is
consistent that once an after-action report is conducted they are able to convey lessons learned
however, the after-action review is not being utilized to its full extent as “lessons-learned” and
those responsible for emergency management are doomed to repeat the same challenges over and
over again disaster after disaster. This would seem that the actual lessons learned are not being
included when updating policies, procedures or actioned into response plans and those
responsible for emergency response are repeating the same mistakes again as a result. Although
after-action reviews have been practiced for over 40 years, the research indicates that current
practice may not lead to increased individual or organizational improved practice. This is

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

21

concerning in that AARs and usage of such documents can lead to improvements in planning and
response to events. The term AAR is used simultaneously between after-action reports and afteraction reviews which is not helpful, and could lead to confusion. The term after-action review is
about taking a look at the next similar event and to complete the learning cycle by applying the
lessons-learned from the previous incident. After-action reviews are about changing behaviours
through reflection and learning from meaningful discussions during events or incidents and not
waiting until the event has finalized. The existing literature is consistent in advocating more
research needs to be conducted on after-action reviews to ensure its efficacy. Existing research is
spread across a broad spectrum of research fields, each with its own varying findings. The
examination of after-action reviews needs to be explored further to determine the best methods
of conducting and reporting as well as when and how they should be performed to improve
overall emergency management response to events so that the identified issues are not reoccurring time and time again. The initial implementation by the US Military of after-action
reviews was for the implementation of a new training strategy so they could adjust on a daily
basis to get the intended results. The need for standardized AAR reporting structures, including
reports forms that validate and record their efficacy needs to be incorporated within emergency
management administration and training to ensure that a database can be centralized for
unlimited emergency management access. A more consistent approach is necessary to ensure
that after-action reviews are performed consistently, are comprehensive in nature as well as
performed in a timely manner to ensure improvement of emergency management for future
events and building overall resiliency.

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

22
References

Allen, J. A., Reiter-Palmon, R., Crowe, J., & Scott, C. (2018). Debriefs: Teams learning from
doing in context. American Psychologist, 73(4), 504-516.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000246
Bryan, P. L. (2017, January-March). AAR Considerations during multinational operations.
Infantry, 45-48. Retrieved from
https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/Magazine/issues/2017/JANMAr/pdf/12)Bryan_AAR.pdf
Cronin, G., & Andrews, S. (2009). After action reviews: A new model for learning. Emergency
Nurse, 17(3), 32-35.
Darling, M., Parry, C., & Moore, J. (2005). Learning in the thick of it. Harvard Business
Review, 83(7/8). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2005/07/learning-in-the-thick-of-it
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/
Friesen, S. K., Kelsey, S., & Legere, J. A. (2017) Defining a risk-informed framework for wholeof-government lessons learned: A Canadian perspective. Journal of Emergency
Management, 15(4), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2017.0331
Girard, T., Wenzel, F., Khanzai, B., Kunz-Plapp, T., Daniell, J. E., & Brink, S. A. (2014). Near
real time analysis of publicly communicated disaster response information. International
Journal of Disaster Risk, 5(3), 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-014-0024-3

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

23

Kaliner, J. (2013). When will we ever learn? The after action review, lessons learned and the
next steps in training and educating the Homeland Security enterprise for the 21st
century. (Master’s thesis, Calhoun: The Naval Postgraduate School Institutional
Archive). Monterey, CA. Retrieved from
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a585764.pdf
Klynveld, Peat, Marwick and Goerdeler (KPMG). (2012). Lesser Slave Lake regional urban
interface wildfire-lessons learned: Final report. Retrieved from
http://www.aema.alberta.ca/documents/0426-lessons-learned-final-report.pdf
Klynveld, Peat, Marwick and Goerdeler (KPMG). (2016). Wood Buffalo wildfire: Post-incident
assessment report. Retrieved from https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/WildfireKPMG-Report.pdf
Knox, C. C. (2013). Analyzing after-action reports from Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina:
Repeated, modified, and newly created recommendations. Journal of Emergency
Management, 11(2), 160-168. https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2012.0135
Kulig, J. C., & Westlund, R. (2015). Linking research findings and decision makers: Insights and
recommendations from a wildfire study. Society & Natural Resources, 28(8), 908-917.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1037876
Rostis, A. (2007). Make no mistake: The effectiveness of the lessons-learned approach to
emergency management in Canada. International Journal of Emergency Management,
4(2), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2007.013990

AFTER-ACTION REVIEWS

24

Savoia, E., Agboola, F., & Biddinger, P. D. (2012). Use of after action reports (AARs) to
promote organizational and systems learning in emergency preparedness. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(8), 2949–
2963. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9082949
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance
performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812448394