My First Big Retrospective

I am sharing this because I am sure many new ATF's might be nervous about their first "big" retrospective.  We've had a few smaller retrospectives, specific to iterations, but the other day we had the first "big" retrospective.  The project is being transitioned to a new ATF, and the goal of this retrospective was o look at the ENTIRE project as a whole and to discuss what is going right, what is not going right, and what improvements can be made. 

I set the ground rules :

1) Delivery Team only (and ATF)

2) Open and honest communication

3) Session not recorded

4) Notes will be taken, but names not attributed to comments

5) All comments should be made in a constructive manner

6) Yes, it is okay to criticize the ATF

7) No "arguing". Comments will be logged, but not debated

8) When possible, provide suggestions, but this is not mandatory

Yes, #6 had me worried, being the ATF. I set these specific ground rules in hopes of getting 100% open and honest communication, where people weren't afraid of having their name attached to something negative, and where people felt comfortable providing constructive criticism. In general, these are challenges, it's part of human nature, nobody wants to be "that person" or "the bad person".

To be honest, on the call itself, we had extremely low attendance - so I opened it up for responses by e-mail and jabber. And the responses came in - lots of them. Now, I still think a collaborative environment such as a call or face-to-face is better, but I'll take what I can get. What's important is collecting the information, so that the entire team and project can improve.

So, turns out, it wasn't so bad. Most of what came up was not surprising. Most of the items mentioned, if people were engaged with the project, they would not be surprised by them. I actually see this as a good sign. I think if there were surprises, then somewhere we all missed the boat. I mean, if we are all engaged, how could something happen that none of us noticed until now? Fortunately, no such surprises came up. These all were issues we knew existed, and were trying to remedy - and in some cases were not successful in fixing.

There were also several positive comments, which is always nice to see.

All-in-all, it was not a bad experience. i had expected to leave with a bruised ego, to be quiet honest. I know Agile emphasizes the importance of fail fast, but still, nobody wants to fail. The fact that there were no surprises, and there were positive comments, tells me that our team is doing a good job - but with room for improvement. 

I think it was a good exercise to put these items "on the table" to put them into words and to really give them substance. I think we all knew where the issues were, but to see them on paper, really helps the team move towards resolution. It "hits home" when there is a list, and you look at it and go "wow - we certainly have some room for improvement".

Improvement is growth, it's not a negative. And, especially from this specific Retrospective, I fully see the value of retrospectives. These aren't just "housekeeping" calls - these are necessary, these are critical to success in Agile.

My final suggestions.

1) Set groundrules

2) Keep it light, don't get too serious

3) Understand it's all about learning and growing, not about finger-pointing

4) And don't worry - you will survive

One final, and very important thing to remember, throughout the call, as the ATF, you are the "servant leader". You should not suggest anything, you should not bring up anything, you should only timebox and facilitate. This call is not about what the ATF thinks, this call is about what the Delivery Team thinks. After all, they are the ones doing the work, what an ATF might think worked might not have actually worked. Or something the ATF might think needs improvement, actually worked perfectly for the Delivery Team. Sometimes it's hard to just sit back, especially when you have something to say, but that's the only way a Retrospective can provide its full value.