Chapter 23: Debriefing and Improving¶

Debriefing as a way of learning¶

A CED project produces two kinds of results. The external results (beneficiaries helped, income generated, cooperatives created, certified training) are the ones TRF requires in the final report. The internal results (what the club learned, what the coordinator understood, what the committee improved in its practices) are rarely documented. Yet they are what allows the next project to be better than the last.

Debriefing is the practice through which a club captures this learning. It is not the technical evaluation of the project (that is documented in the TRF final report). It is the lessons learned by the people who carried the project: what did we learn, what would we do differently, what do we want to pass on?

This chapter sets out the method for debriefing a CED project, adapted from the After-Action Review (AAR) format used in the disaster guide. It extends it to the club's continuous improvement cycle: the annual retrospective, preparing the following season, institutional memory.

The project debriefing: seven questions¶

When a CED project closes, the coordinator holds a debriefing meeting with the people involved. Format: 2 to 3 hours, indoors, away from operational emergencies, with time for individual preparation.

Who takes part¶

A broad list, but not open to everyone:

The club's CED coordinator
The three portfolios of the CED committee (Finance, Field, Communication)
The current club president + the president who launched the project, if different
The club's Foundation Chair
A representative of the local partner (invited, essential)
A representative of the international partner club (remotely or in person)
The district's DRFC (invited)
A Rotaract member, if involved

Typically six to twelve people. Beyond that, the discussion loses focus.

The seven questions to cover¶

1. What worked well?

Start with the positive. No false modesty. What worked (methods, partnerships, technical choices, high points) is noted so it can be replicated in future projects. Between 5 and 10 items.

2. What did not work?

Without looking for someone to blame. The undersized M&E plan, the difficult partnership with a given MFI, the CNA that missed an important dimension, the unrealistic schedule at a given point. Each item is a lesson for next time. Between 5 and 10 items.

3. What did we learn about CED?

The methodological lessons: one microfinance approach works in this context but not in another, combining training + microcredit produces a particular effect, cooperative governance under OHADA (the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa) raises a specific issue. These lessons become the heritage of the coordinator and the CED committee.

4. What did we learn about our club?

How did the club carry the project? What skills emerged? What weaknesses? Did the CED committee hold up over time? Did the committee have the support of the club board? This question is introspective: it helps the club progress beyond the specific project.

5. What did we learn about our partners?

Did the local partner keep its commitments? Was the international partner club a real partner or a distant signatory? Were the local authorities reliable? These lessons guide the choice of partners for future projects.

6. What do we pass on to the club that will take over the project or launch the next one?

Even when the project is closed, there is almost always a follow-up: a post-project evaluation at 24 months, replication in another context, an ongoing link with the beneficiary community, a new project on the same theme. Who ensures this handover? With what documents? Under what conditions?

7. What concrete actions do we take from this for the next 12 months?

The debriefing does not end with an observation. It produces an action list: three to five decisions to carry out during the year, such as adjusting the minimum standard, additional training, adapting the documentation kit, a relationship with a new partner, a review of the annual calendar.

Running the debriefing¶

A seasoned CED coordinator facilitates. If the coordinator is too emotionally involved in the project (often the case), a third party can be asked: the club's Foundation Chair, the district's DRFC, an experienced member of a neighboring club, a regional RAGCED coordinator.

Note-taker: takes notes and writes a short summary report within 7 days. The report is not circulated outside (it is an internal document). It is archived in the club's handover file.

Debriefing pitfalls¶

Pitfall	Consequence	Mitigation
Looking for culprits	The discussion freezes, participants protect themselves	Rule set at the start: we look for lessons, not culprits
Staying in consensus	The real lessons never surface	Encourage disagreement, let people voice dissent
Debriefing too late	Memories fade, people have scattered	Hold it within 6 weeks of closing, at most
Debriefing with no follow-up	The lessons lead to nothing	Concrete action list, person in charge, deadline
Debriefing without the local partner	You talk about others without hearing them	The local partner's presence is essential
Debriefing as settling scores	Personal tensions get in the way of learning	If the mood is tense, bring in an outside facilitator

The club's annual improvement cycle¶

Beyond debriefing a single project, a club running several CED projects at once needs a separate annual improvement cycle. This cycle follows the Rotary year.

June: review of the Rotary year just ended¶

The CED committee consolidates:

A review of the projects under way or closed during the year
The status of the club's minimum standard (Chapter 0, the ten criteria)
A review of accumulated assets (members' skills, active partnerships, RAGCED network, district relationships)
Gaps identified against the initial ambitions

July: handover and repositioning¶

The handover file goes to the incoming president
A structured briefing for the new president
Confirmation of CED commitments for the new year

September: updating the asset inventory¶

As described in Chapter 7: members' skills, material assets, relationship capital, stakeholder mapping. The CED coordinator carries out this work on a rolling basis between July and September.

October: club training and doctrinal alignment¶

The club's annual 2-hour training (Chapter 0): a reminder of the doctrine, a review of the minimum standard audit, commitment for the year.

February: review of ongoing projects¶

A detailed review of each ongoing project: progress, gaps, decisions needed. Any adjustments to the portfolio.

May: annual half-day CED workshop¶

As described in Chapter 0: minimum standard audit, work on a pilot project or one in preparation, a draft concept note.

Over 2 to 3 years, this structured annual cycle brings the club to maturity in CED. The first projects improve in quality, the next ones are more ambitious, the cycles speed up.

A club that debriefs for itself builds local capital. A club that shares what it has learned builds collective capital. Three main channels.

The district¶

Present your lessons learned at the annual district conference: 15 to 20 minutes, with the results and above all the lessons learned. The other clubs in the district learn, your club establishes its position, and the DRFC and the district governor see your operational maturity.

RAGCED¶

Offer an article for the newsletter, speak at a monthly meeting, present at the regional fair. RAGCED has a constant appetite for documented lessons learned: they feed its body of methodology.

Rotary Showcase¶

A final update of the Showcase post with explicit lessons learned (not just the raw results). A Showcase project that openly shares its difficulties and its successes does a great service to the clubs that will draw on it.

As mentioned in Chapter 21, publicly documenting a project that did not reach all its objectives takes courage. But that is exactly what Rotary culture lacks: honest lessons learned about difficulties. A club that takes this step contributes to a collective maturity that is sorely needed.

The club's institutional memory¶

The annual rotation of presidents is built into Rotary. It has its virtues: renewal, broader engagement, shared leadership. It also has a cost: lost memory, starting from scratch, discontinuity.

The three memory tools¶

1. The CED handover file (Chapter 22): handed each year to the incoming president, updated by the outgoing CED coordinator.

2. The historical register of CED projects: a simple table consolidating the history of the club's projects: year, project name, country, budget, results, key lessons. Kept by the club's Foundation Chair. This register can be consulted whenever a question comes up ("Have we ever run a microfinance project?" "Which partner did we use for this type of project?").

3. A stable CED coordinator: the best institutional memory is not a document. It is a person who stays in the role over time. The ideal CED coordinator serves 3 to 5 years, not one. This stability is what allows the memory to be carried beyond the documents.

When a coordinator leaves¶

When the CED coordinator changes (death, move, resignation, end of term), an in-depth handover is organized. Ideally with 2 to 3 months of overlap. It includes:

Complete handover of the handover file
Introduction by name to the active partners
A round of visits to local partners to introduce the successor
A one-day briefing with the Foundation Chair, the club president and the DRFC
GMS registration and RAGCED membership confirmed
Access to all of the project's digital accounts

A rushed handover between coordinators is one of the leading causes of slowdown or failure in ongoing projects.

Critical moments to document¶

Beyond the final debriefing, some moments in the project deserve immediate lessons learned, even just 30 minutes. The dates to mark:

Moment	Lessons-learned format
End of the CNA	30 min in the CED committee: what did we learn, what would we do differently?
TRF response to the submission (approval or request for revision)	30 min: what warnings? what to improve next time?
First payment received	A symbolic moment, a milestone review, a review of partners
First operational incident (conflict, delay, break with a partner)	Lessons learned within 15 days so it does not happen again
Midpoint	Full strategic review: are we still on the right track?
Major external event (health crisis, conflict, political crisis)	A meeting devoted to adapting

These mini-debriefings do not replace the final debriefing. They let you learn continuously rather than all at the end.

Passing it on to other clubs in the district¶

A club experienced in CED has an implicit responsibility toward the district's beginner clubs. This responsibility comes from no formal rule, but it is the foundation of the district's CED culture.

Forms of transfer¶

An invitation to a beginner club's meeting to present a project and answer questions
Informal mentoring of a neighboring club's CED coordinator
Support for a club putting together its first Global Grant: reviewing the concept note, advice on choosing partners, recommendations on risks
Taking part in the district conference as a speaker on CED topics
Co-leading a project with a beginner club to train it on the job

These contributions are unpaid. They build the club's reputation, they recharge the coordinator (explaining forces you to structure your thinking), and they prepare the ground for future inter-club partnerships.

What the district can formalize¶

A district can go further and organize:

A CED mentoring program with formal pairs of experienced club / beginner club
District training sessions led by experienced CED coordinators
A reference CED club in the district, explicitly mandated by the district governor to support the others

Where such institutionalization exists, it greatly speeds up the CED maturity of the district as a whole.

Checklist¶

For each closed CED project¶

Debriefing held within 6 weeks of official closing
The seven questions covered, short summary report written
Concrete action list for the next 12 months, people in charge designated
Shared with the district, RAGCED, Rotary Showcase
Archived in the club's handover file

Annually¶

Annual improvement cycle carried out (June to May)
Historical register of CED projects updated
Annual club training in October
Annual CED workshop in May
Handover file updated and passed to the incoming president

At each change of CED coordinator¶

In-depth handover organized over at least 2 to 3 months
Introduction to the active partners
Complete handover of documents
GMS registration and RAGCED membership confirmed for the successor

Continuous learning as the mark of a mature club¶

A club that debriefs after every project, keeps its annual cycle, shares what it learns and supports beginner clubs acquires a maturity that changes its standing in the district and within RAGCED. Funding comes more easily, partners approach the club, and the DRFC recommends it unprompted to clubs that are getting started.

This maturity cannot be decreed. It is built project after project, debriefing after debriefing. It is the most valuable asset a club can accumulate over the years.

The last chapter of Part V covers what the club does when a pilot project deserves to be replicated or expanded: the logic of scaling up, the natural culmination of a mature CED club.