10.1 Reflection sessions | Feedback Loops

First, after closing the loop, convene the core team for a reflection session while memories are still fresh. We recommend using the after-action review as a template to kick off this discussion; you can add more questions, but we recommend keeping the process as simple as possible.

Figure 6. After-action review template

1a. What was supposed to happen?	1b. What actually happened?

1c. Why were there differences?

2a. What went well? Why? Consider the level of inclusion and engagement in the process – did you reach a representative and diverse cross section of the community?	2b. What didn’t go well? Why? Consider do-no-harm issues – Did residents complain about certain aspects of the process? Was it considered fair and legitimate?

3. What would you do differently next time? What should change? Consider inclusion and do no harm. How can you improve on the inclusivity of the process?

To organize a reflection session, convene the members of the team who participated in all or only a few stages of the feedback loop process. Designate a facilitator to guide the discussion and a notetaker. The facilitator should aim to have an open discussion, hear from all of the participants and focus on drawing out lessons. The notetaker should help the group organize its thoughts and focus on drawing out specific and actionable recommendations. The after-action review session should last approximately 90 minutes.

For the discussion, it might be easier to reflect on discrete stages of the process one at a time. For example, the process could be broken into three parts: initial design and start-up (Steps 1–4), public consultation and solution codesign (Steps 5–7), and implementation and follow-up (Steps 8–9).

For questions 1a–1c, first consider your objectives. What did you set out to do, and were you successful in doing it? Identify the particular moments where plans and reality differed, and consider the reasons why. These reasons will be useful when generating recommendations or adjustments for future processes.

For questions 2a–2b, focus on what went well and what can be improved. This differs from question 1 in that it should capture your team’s strengths and weaknesses. Ask the team to consider what actions they felt were most worthwhile and effective; conversely, ask them what they did not like or where the process fell short. During this stage, asking participants to write down one thing that went well and one thing they felt could be improved might be helpful. Be sure to follow up on each comment to understand why it was a strength or a weakness and more about the root causes of success or failure.

Finally, question 3 is where these reflections can be turned into recommendations. Facilitators should focus on prompting participants to provide specific recommendations (in that they clearly refer to a particular action or step) and actionable (in that they are within the team’s power to follow through next time). A facilitator can prompt participants to rate each step on a scale of one to ten, and then ask, “What would make it a ten?” Consider workable and actionable changes to a future process, such as additional materials, changes to timelines, collaboration between teams and the project budget. For example, “More time to collect feedback” isn’t specific or actionable; instead, “Extend the timeline to distribute questionnaires from two weeks to 20 days.”

Keep the discussion open, candid and professional. Avoid generating a list of complaints – there will always be calls for more time, money and help. Instead, focus on sustaining good practices and mitigating weaknesses.

Following your session, the facilitator and notetaker should send participants a brief (one- or two-page) summary of key lessons learned and a list of specific and actionable recommendations. The document can be left open for additional feedback and comments but should be purpose-made to inform the design and implementation of the next feedback loop process.

Box 33. Reflect on do-no-harm and inclusion practices

Now that you’ve closed your initial feedback loop process, reflect on whether or not your efforts to promote equity and inclusion were achieved.

With regard to inclusion, did your process reach and reflect the views of all residents, including ethnic or religious minorities, women, youth, older adults and people with disabilities? How do you know?

Run through the questions of the after-action review: How did your plans differ from reality, and why? What did you do well, and what could you improve? What will you change next time? Perhaps you planned to reach a representative sample of the whole community and therefore only incidentally contacted a handful of people with disabilities. Would you consider that meaningful engagement? If not, next time, perhaps your team collaborates with a community organization to convene a workshop or meeting for more deliberate and direct sourcing of feedback.

Concerning your plans for do no harm (refer to Annex III), especially in contexts with sensitive conflict dynamics, conduct an after-action review. Reflect on how your feedback loop interacted with conflict dynamics and the success or failure of your mitigation strategies. Did you successfully account for local perspectives of respect and fairness? Did the process account for power imbalances or inequalities between groups and community members? For example, during data collection, did the questionnaire options leave out certain groups or perspectives? What can be improved?