27th October 2026
After Action Reviews: How Major Events Should Improve the Next Operation
When a major event ends, most teams do the same thing. They thank everyone involved, close the invoices and move on to the next agenda. If nothing serious went wrong, the operation is considered a success.
A few months later, a new event begins, and many of the same small problems return. The same entrance takes longer than expected. The same type of schedule change reaches the driver too late. The same provider needs the same clarification.
The lessons existed. They were simply never written down, discussed or turned into changes.
An after action review is the discipline that prevents this. It is a structured conversation, held soon after an operation, that compares what was planned with what actually happened and decides what will be done differently next time.
Where the practice comes from
After action reviews were developed in military settings and later adopted by emergency management agencies, hospitals and large organizations that run complex operations. The format is widely used because it is simple and because it focuses on learning rather than on assigning blame.
At its core, a review answers four questions:
- What did we plan to happen?
- What actually happened?
- Why was there a difference?
- What will we change next time?
The value is not in the questions themselves. It is in asking them honestly, soon enough and with the right people in the room.
When to run it
Timing matters. Memory fades quickly, and details that seem obvious on the last day of an event are hard to recover two weeks later.
Many teams work with two moments.
A short debrief within 24 to 48 hours. A quick conversation while the details are fresh, focused on the facts: what happened, when, and what people noticed.
A structured review within two weeks. A longer session where the team looks at patterns, causes and decisions, and agrees on specific changes.
Waiting longer than that usually means the review becomes a formality.
What to look at
A useful review goes beyond incidents. Some of the most valuable lessons come from things that almost went wrong or that worked only because someone improvised.
The real timeline. Compare planned times with actual times for critical movements. Patterns appear quickly: the same type of transfer is always late, or the same venue always takes longer to enter.
Decisions and their timing. Which decisions were made on time, and which were made after the window had closed? We discussed this idea in Decision Windows: Why Timing Matters More Than Information During Major Events.
Handoffs. Where did information stall between teams or providers? Handoffs are where many operations lose time, as covered in The Coordination Problem.
Near misses. Situations that could have caused a problem but didn’t. They are often the clearest warning signs for the next event.
What worked well. A review that only looks at problems misses the practices worth repeating on purpose.
Common mistakes
Turning it into a search for someone to blame. When people expect criticism, they share less. The review should focus on how the system worked, not on who failed.
Only reviewing serious incidents. If nothing major happened, teams assume there is nothing to learn. In practice, smooth operations still contain delays, workarounds and lucky escapes.
Leaving providers out. Drivers, local partners and venue contacts often see what the central team does not. Their input makes the review more accurate.
Writing lessons that never change anything. A document full of observations, stored in a folder, does not improve the next operation. Only changes to plans, checklists and procedures do.
Turning lessons into changes
The last question, what will we change, is the one that matters most. Each lesson should become a concrete adjustment with an owner.
That can mean updating a pre-event checklist, adding time to a specific type of transfer, changing how schedule updates reach drivers, adjusting provider briefings or defining a new trigger for contingency routes.
The test is simple: if the next event were to start tomorrow, would the plan be different because of this review? If the answer is no, the review is not finished.
For teams building their pre-event process, The 72-Hour Executive Travel Risk Checklist is a good place to apply what the review revealed.
Protecting confidentiality
Reviews of executive and delegation operations often involve sensitive information: who traveled, where they went and what happened. The review should be handled with the same discretion as the operation itself.
Useful lessons can almost always be recorded without names, exact locations or client details. What matters for the next operation is the pattern, not the identity of the people involved.
Frequently asked questions
What is an after action review?
It is a structured discussion held after an operation to compare what was planned with what happened, understand the reasons for the differences and decide what will change next time.
Who should take part in an after action review?
The core operations team, plus representatives from the main providers involved, such as transportation, security and local partners, whenever possible.
How soon after an event should the review happen?
A short debrief within 24 to 48 hours, followed by a structured review within about two weeks.
Every event prepares the next one
Organizations that run major events regularly don’t rely on getting everything right the first time. They rely on getting a little better every time.
An after action review is how that happens. It turns one week of experience into a better plan, a clearer checklist and fewer repeated problems at the next event.
What is one lesson from a past event that changed how your team plans today? Share it in the comments.
