Thursday, 17 December 2009
A great story via a Nancy Dixon session at KM world, and then retold by Robert Swanwick giving us an interestign approach to After Action review in quiet cultures
"Karuna is part of the military in Singapore. He starts out by setting the scene and explaining that military personnel in Singapore are very reluctant to share their opinions due to their culture. This can make for a very quiet after-action-review (AAR). In order to maximize the value of the program, they need to coax out the tacit knowledge. So, his team developed a framework they call 2-5-1. It goes like this:
■ Who you are
■ Summary of your experience
■ Little finger – what parts of the effort did not get enough attention
■ Ring finger – What relationships were formed, what you learned about relationship building
■ Middle finger – what you disliked, what/who made you frustrated
■ Pointer finger – what you would do better next time around, what you want to tell those who were “in charge” about what they could do better
■ Thumb (up) – what went well. What was good.
1 – the most important takeaway from the effort
This is a framework that everyone can relate to. It is also a framework that is easily remembered and easily walked through while standing up in front of a group. Those who are uncomfortable speaking in front of a group can use one hand to grasp the corresponding finger on the other hand for each section…adding to their comfort level by giving them a prop".
Good story - good method! I remember how we struggled with AARs in Japan, back in BP days. This methodology could have been very helpful.