To Battle We Go: After Action Reports
Our military services all use “After Action Reports,” a method of review designed to improve mission performance and training. After any kind of operation or training exercise, leaders and participants will meet to discuss what they have just done in an informal, wide-open forum, and that input is then refined into a written report.
The template for that report is designed to focus the discussion on four main questions, or groups of questions:
- First, what was the mission? What was expected to happen? What actually happened?
- Second, what went well, and why did it go well? Did it go as planned, or did it go “right for the wrong reasons,” or “right in spite?”
- Third, what didn’t go well, and why? Was the whole plan bad, or just parts of it?
- Fourth, what are the learning points? What should be changed? How can methods and training be improved to do better next time?
After Action Reports look back, but only for the purpose of looking forward. The goal is improving future planning, preparation, and execution. And, very importantly, they are not for assigning blame or issuing reprimands, or even commenting on the performance of others (the military has a separate accountability system for that, believe me!). Doing so will shut down honest input of the most valuable kind from the participants. Rather, each participant is looking for ways to improve their own performance.
This system and culture of constant and systematic review has filtered down to many non-military organizations, including businesses, schools, and all levels of government. We even have hints of Jesus using a similar method to train his disciples when we read accounts of their discussions along the road immediately after large teaching and healing events, or when the “72” disciples came back from their inaugural missions to report to him.
I’ve been part of reviews of Salvation Army events and programs as a soldier and an employee over the years, but I don’t think this idea is as important a part of our culture as it should be, and certainly not as important as it is in our military services. Our Army also needs to constantly evaluate what we are doing and how well we are doing it. We have a wonderful historical legacy of programs and methods that have been successful all over the world, but society changes, and local conditions change. We might not be doing the right things, or we might not be doing the right things well.
Whatever the case, we should never be satisfied with just doing what we’ve always done, or just doing things “good enough.” That isn’t good enough for our Lord and King, who demands our best always, especially when it comes to reaching the lost. He has done all things well, as the old hymn says, and so should we.