Hi all. I would like to start the practice of after action reviews for our presentations. This simply means taking the time to reflect on how it went and what we learned. What worked for you? What did not work or might have been better? What would you keep the same? What would you change or amplify? What did you/we learn? How can you tell you learned that? Does anything change as a result of learning it? Etc.
In addition, what are the assumptions, assertions, and models being suggested? What is the context for the subject? What process is used or was described?
When possible perhaps we can engage in a bit of deconstruction and reflection. Were there emotional dynamics involved? What did the talk or presentation take as a given starting place and what are the the implications of that? Are there consequences? What dynamics of inclusion, exclusion, etc. are implied, if any? Does this still hold if we imagine a different starting place or context? What are the biggest risks associated with the model or area? What problem is it trying to solve, if it is trying to solve a problem? What are the consequences of the model if it fails? What are the consequences of the model if it works? What are the dynamics of interdependence and systemic relations implied or necessary for the model? What is the use orientation? Is it necessary to ignore anything for the model to work? Is it necessary to amplify something, perhaps even artificially?
I would like to start this weeks session with some reflection on this before we engage the second presentation, if possible and acceptable.