1. Diagnosis first

After-Action Review

The cheapest learning ritual there is

Use when

Anything just ended: a project, a cycle, an incident, a launch

After-Action Review, shown as a sequence of 5 parts: Intended, Actual, Why the gap, Keep, Change.
  1. 1

    Intended

    What was supposed to happen? State it before anyone explains anything.

  2. 2

    Actual

    What actually happened? Facts and sequence, no attribution.

  3. 3

    Why the gap

    Explain the difference only after intent and outcome are both on the table.

  4. 4

    Keep

    What do we repeat next time, named specifically enough to repeat?

  5. 5

    Change

    What changes next cycle? Every change item gets an owner or it is a wish.

Thirty minutes, four questions, within days while memory is still honest.

How to use it

Rules that make it work: run it within days, no attribution in the notes, juniors speak first so the senior view does not anchor the room. The discipline is separating intent from outcome before explaining the gap; most teams skip straight to explanation and litigate memory instead. Watch-out: an AAR that produces no changed behaviour by the next cycle was a ceremony.

Card details

Model type
Sequence
Origin status
Established
Content last reviewed
28 July 2026

Origin

Established

United States Army after-action review practice; see Darling, Parry and Moore, Harvard Business Review, 2005.

Neighbouring models

NextStructured Hiring

Was this useful?