Don't Do Retrospectives Unless You're Going to Do Them Right

The odds are good that you've been involved in some sort of retrospective meeting. It may have been called something else such as the popular 'post-mortem', but the purpose is generally the same for any given software release/sprint/iteration: figure out what went well and what didn't go well. Why, then, do so many retrospectives go awry? In my experience, there are three very common reasons: there are too many items in the 'must improve' list, there is no follow-up on the items in that list, and the list isn't very good to begin with.

Too Many Items 

One common problem I've seen is for a team to put too many items on the list of things to be improved for the next iteration. Ever had one thing to do? How was that? Even if it was a difficult task, at least you could wrap your head around it. Ever had a thousand things to do? How was that? Overwhelming, right? Having too many items on a 'must improve' list is arguably as bad as not having a list at all. While it is often important to document all the ideas on what could be improved, it is best to focus on a handful of items (ideally, one or two) that could be improved for the next iteration. If your team improves one or two things every iteration, then that is continuous improvement. 



Lack of Follow-Up 

Even if you manage to decide on a small number of improvements to be made, you can still run into trouble by failing to follow up on the tasks that will implement the improvement. If no one has the responsibility of ensuring that the tasks get done, then it's quite likely that the tasks will not get done. It doesn't really matter if you have your manager, scrum master, team lead, or intern as the responsible party for keeping an eye on the improvement, what matters is that someone is making sure that the tasks get completed. By the way, the person responsible for ensuring that the tasks get done doesn't necessarily have to be the same person to actually implement the improvement. They just need to make sure that the tasks don't fall through the cracks during the heat of battle. 

Nothing But Whining 

Okay, so you have a small list of improvement items and someone is assigned to make sure that those items are completed. Everything is great, right? No. You can still have problems if your list isn't very good to start with. While it is common to focus on things that went wrong during an iteration, it is important to remember the things that went well too. It's too easy to get caught up in having 'improvements' that revolve around negative things (e.g. "must make sure that we get the specifications from the customer") and lose sight of the positive things that have been done that could be further improved (e.g. "integrating our source control with our bug tracking system was great, maybe we can integrate that with our help desk"). Improving on your improvements is allowed.

Folks, I'm not going to claim that this is an exhaustive list of things that can be done to make sure that your retrospectives are fruitful. What I will claim, however, is that committing to a small list of well-thought-out improvements will make your software development life better.