Abstract
After action review approach supports the desire to find and use a continuous learning culture, best practices and innovative approaches. During after action review, both the successful and unsuccessful aspects of the incident are evaluated with all stakeholders and recorded in the institution's database for the purpose of shaping the organization's strategies and bringing them to the benefit of all employees. Four basic questions are asked: what was planned, what happened, why happened and what should be done? These are spoken in an environment that is honest, unblamed and unbiased supported by everyone and converted into a report. From this point of view, it also deals with the successful aspects of the action. In order to benefit from after action review, evaluating the various phases of the project and ensuring that the deficiencies are timely improved. In this article, differences between traditional performance evaluation and after action review are compared. Unlike traditional performance, it is a process in which the whole team is encouraged to participate, the team evaluates successful and unsuccessful events and discovered what they should be in the open communication environment. The goal is to help the team to think about how best to work together to produce better results in the future. Two formats of after action review are provided in detail.
References
- Carroll, J. (1998). Organizational learning activities in high-hazard industries: The logics underlying self- analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 699-717. Crossan, M. M., H. Lane, W. & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522-537 Campbell, D. J. & Dardis, G.J. (2004). The ‘Be, Know, Do’ Model of Leader Development. Human Resource Planning, 2004, 27 (2), 26. Dinçer, Ö. (2013). Örgüt Geliştirme. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları Drucker, P. (2007). Management Challenges for the 21st. Century. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann. Everett, S.E. (1992). Oral History: Techniques and Procedures. Washington DC: Center of Military History. Horwitch, Mark & Armacost, Robert (2002). Helping Knowledge Management Be All It Can Be. Journal of Business Strategy, 23 (3), 26-31. Luthans, F. & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational Behavior Modification and Beyond. Glenview: Foresman. Luma, I. (2012). Human Centered Design. Pittsburg: Free Press. March, J. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen? New York: Maxwell Macmillan International. Michel, L. & Brookes, N. (2004). Knowledge Management Benchmarks For Project Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1), 103-116 Mind,T. (2019). After Action Review (AAR) Process. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_73.htm. Morris M. W & Moore, P. C. (2000). The Lessons We (Don’t) Learn: Counterfactual Thinking and Organizational Accountability after a Close Call. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 4, 737. Morrison, J.E. & Meliza, L.L. (1999). Foundation of After Action Review Process. US. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Roese, N.J. & Olson, J.M. (1995). What Might Have Been? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence. Walden, J. L. (2009). Modeling and Benchmarking Supply Chain Leadership: Setting the Conditions for Excellence (Resource Management). New York: CRC Press. Wiig, K. M. (1994). Comprehensive Knowledge Management. Working Paper KRI #1999-4 Revision 2 by http://www.krii.com/downloads/comprehensive_km.pdf Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Wood,R. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.
Abstract
Aksiyondan sonra değerlendirme yaklaşımının amacı, sürekli bir öğrenme kültürünü
yerleştirme, en iyi uygulamaları ve yenilikçi yaklaşımları bulma ve organizasyon içinde yaymadır.
Aksiyondan sonra, olmuş olayın hem başarılı hem de başarısız yönleriyle tüm paydaşlarla
değerlendirmeye tabii tutup, kurumun stratejilerini şekil verme ve çalışanların istifadesine sunma
amacıyla kurumun veri bankasına kaydedilmesidir. 4 tane temel soru sorulur: Ne planlandı?, ne oldu?,
niçin oldu? ve ne yapılmalı? Bunlar yansız, organizasyonda kimseyi suçlanmadan, ön yargısız, herkesin
katılımın desteklediği bir ortamda sadece faaliyet konuşularak rapor haline dönüştürülmektedir.
Aksiyondan sonra değerlendirmeden faydalanabilmek için, projenin çeşitli dönemlerine yayılarak
yapılması, eksikliklerin zamanında iyileştirilmesi yönünden ilerlenmektedir. Makalede geleneksel
performans değerlendirme ile aksiyondan sonra değerlendirme farkları karşılaştırılmaktadır.
Geleneksel performanstan farklı olarak, aksiyondan sonra tüm ekibin katılımının teşvik edildiği, ekibin
başarılı ve başarısız yönleriyle değerlendirildiği, açık iletişim ortamında ve ekibin olanın ve olması
gerekenin kendilerinin keşfettiği bir süreçtir. Amaç tüm ekiptekilerin gelecekte daha iyi sonuçlar
üretmeleri için birlikte en iyi nasıl çalışacaklarını düşünmelerine yardımcı olmaktır. Aksiyondan
sonrada kullanılabilecek iki tane format detaylı şekilde açıklanmaktadır.
References
- Carroll, J. (1998). Organizational learning activities in high-hazard industries: The logics underlying self- analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 699-717. Crossan, M. M., H. Lane, W. & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522-537 Campbell, D. J. & Dardis, G.J. (2004). The ‘Be, Know, Do’ Model of Leader Development. Human Resource Planning, 2004, 27 (2), 26. Dinçer, Ö. (2013). Örgüt Geliştirme. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları Drucker, P. (2007). Management Challenges for the 21st. Century. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann. Everett, S.E. (1992). Oral History: Techniques and Procedures. Washington DC: Center of Military History. Horwitch, Mark & Armacost, Robert (2002). Helping Knowledge Management Be All It Can Be. Journal of Business Strategy, 23 (3), 26-31. Luthans, F. & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational Behavior Modification and Beyond. Glenview: Foresman. Luma, I. (2012). Human Centered Design. Pittsburg: Free Press. March, J. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen? New York: Maxwell Macmillan International. Michel, L. & Brookes, N. (2004). Knowledge Management Benchmarks For Project Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1), 103-116 Mind,T. (2019). After Action Review (AAR) Process. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_73.htm. Morris M. W & Moore, P. C. (2000). The Lessons We (Don’t) Learn: Counterfactual Thinking and Organizational Accountability after a Close Call. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 4, 737. Morrison, J.E. & Meliza, L.L. (1999). Foundation of After Action Review Process. US. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Roese, N.J. & Olson, J.M. (1995). What Might Have Been? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence. Walden, J. L. (2009). Modeling and Benchmarking Supply Chain Leadership: Setting the Conditions for Excellence (Resource Management). New York: CRC Press. Wiig, K. M. (1994). Comprehensive Knowledge Management. Working Paper KRI #1999-4 Revision 2 by http://www.krii.com/downloads/comprehensive_km.pdf Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Wood,R. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Makaleler |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | August 31, 2021 |
| Acceptance Date | April 15, 2021 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2021 Issue: 59 |
ERÜ İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 2021 | iibfdergi@erciyes.edu.tr
Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-Gayri Ticari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.
