This thesis aims to explore the challenges of translation of after-action reviews (AARs) from theory and best practices into real-life. Furthermore, the purpose was to explore if existing theories can be translated to another context and how. This is examined on the case of extreme action teams, more concretely firefighters in Sweden. In extreme action teams there is a high importance on learning and improvement. After-action reviews as a learning tool can be a very suitable approach to foster constant development and enhance extreme action teams’ resilience and effectiveness.  From the literature findings it is apparent that there are several frameworks for after-action reviews. However, these are mainly based on a specific organizational context, namely the U.S. Army’s. Practitioners and researchers should be aware of the fact that this process has been developed with the military in mind, a fact which may adversely affect the implementation in organizations with a different background. Translating an after-action review from one specific context to another and more generally from theory to practice comes with challenges that will be explored in this study.  This thesis was conducted using qualitative research to examine how after-action reviews are conducted in real-life. Data were mainly collected through semi-structured interviews with firefighters and team leaders from different teams in the case organization. The interviews helped us to understand how the after-action reviews were perceived by the interviewees. Based on the literature best practices for the implementation and conduction of after-action reviews were identified which were compared to the empirical results.  We identified two main challenges of translating after-action reviews which are that (1) it is not in all contexts possible to strictly follow the theory and (2) it is not clear to what extent the AAR frameworks and best practices are suited to the specific needs and capabilities of teams. We emphasize the importance of context and identify that when translating an after-action review based on the military context to the firefighting context, there are significant differences between the theoretical after-action review and the after-action review utilized in real life.  We developed two main recommendations for extreme action teams based on the context in which they operate. Firstly, after-action review frameworks and best practices should be deviated from if they are not realistic or if they are too constraining. Secondly, we would encourage that extreme action teams to change and adapt the theory according to their own needs, to make the after-action review as effective as possible for them.