Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: d7f05a508a3e9a4f466e5777ed22a3921efe3844798812ebad1c3226b818a3e2

# Team Retrospective

A team reviews a completed work cycle using a five-phase structure to surface facts, examine root causes, and commit to specific process improvements.

**Time:** 60 minutes. Standard 60-minute sprint retrospective matching evidence recommendations
**People:** 3 to 12. Whole group with individual silent writing and optional pair analysis

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Produce two or three owned action commitments based on team evaluation of a completed cycle of work.
**Use it when:** At the close of a sprint, project phase, or critical milestone when a working team needs to evaluate and adapt its shared workflow.
**Skip it when:** Skip when leadership has already mandated process changes, when an active interpersonal dispute requires mediation, or when no shared work has occurred.

## Materials and tools

- Sticky notes in at least two colors (1 pad per participant)
- Dark chisel-tip markers (1 per participant)
- Wall space or large whiteboard divided into three columns
- Sheet of dot-voting stickers (3 dots per participant)
- Visible digital or tabletop countdown timer

## Before participants arrive

1. Label three whiteboard columns: What went well, What didn't go well, and What should we change.
2. Write the Retrospective Prime Directive visibly on flip chart paper or the board corner.
3. Distribute markers and sticky notes to each workspace.

## Say this to open

We are pausing today to examine our last work cycle. Our goal is to identify what supported our work and what got in our way, then agree on a couple of changes we will test. We operate under the premise that everyone did the best work they could given their context, resources, and knowledge at the time. We are focusing on our shared systems and workflows, not personal fault.

## How to run it

### 1. Set the Stage (8 minutes)

State the specific time frame being reviewed. Read the Prime Directive aloud. Conduct a quick verbal round where each person shares one word describing their focus today, or passes. Briefly review previous action commitments without debating them, noting if they were completed or carried over.

### 2. Gather Data (15 minutes)

Set a timer for 5 minutes of silent writing. Each participant writes observations on sticky notes using one clear thought per note across the three columns. Once writing ends, invite participants up sequentially to post their notes. Each person speaks for at most 20 seconds per note while placing it. Group duplicate or related notes together into emergent clusters.

### 3. Generate Insights (17 minutes)

Give each participant 3 dot stickers. Allow 2 minutes to silently vote on the clusters they believe require the most attention. Select the top two themes. Lead a focused discussion on root causes for each theme: ask what system or workflow factors contributed, whether this is an ongoing pattern, and what conditions would need to change.

### 4. Decide What to Do (15 minutes)

For each selected theme, ask the group what single concrete experiment or process change to implement in the next cycle. Draft actions in concrete terms (for example, 'hold a 10-minute standup at 9:00 am' rather than 'improve communication'). Secure a single volunteer owner and a checkpoint date for each item. Limit commitments to two or three total items.

### 5. Close the Retrospective (5 minutes)

Read back the finalized action commitments, owners, and review dates. Run a closing check where each person holds up 1 to 5 fingers indicating return on time invested, or shares one word reflecting their takeaway. Confirm that the facilitator will distribute written notes within 24 hours.


## Debrief questions

- Which workflow pattern had the biggest impact on our delivery this cycle?
- How well do our agreed actions address the root cause rather than just the symptom?
- What is one practice we agreed to keep doing that made the team resilient?

**Finished output:** A list of 2 to 3 documented action items with assigned owners and checkpoint dates posted in the team workspace.

## Remote

Use a digital board with three labeled columns. Give 7 minutes for silent virtual sticky note writing. Keep voice lines muted during writing, then unmute individuals sequentially to present notes. Use digital voting pins or stamps for cluster prioritization.

## Hybrid

Provide a single shared virtual whiteboard accessible to in-room and remote people on laptops. Have in-room participants type directly into the board or assign a dedicated room scribe to duplicate physical sticky notes online before voting.

## Access and participation choices

- Silent writing ensures everyone can contribute without verbal interruptions.
- Participants may pass during check-in or closing verbal rounds without explanation.
- Written input can be submitted anonymously to the board if preferred.

## If the session gets stuck

**Conversation shifts into personal blame or complaints about specific people.**

Intervene immediately and point to the Prime Directive. Reframe the discussion around the process: ask what system flaw made that error likely.

**Proposed action items are vague aspirations without real testability.**

Ask what exact behavior someone walking into the room would observe next week, then rephrase the note into that concrete action.


## Terms used here

- Prime Directive: A foundational agreement stating that team members are assumed to have done their best work given the tools, information, and context they had.
- Dot voting: A prioritization method where each participant places a fixed number of sticky dots on items to surface group consensus quickly.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in WorkshopBank. The text attributes the underlying framework to Norman Kerth's 'Project Retrospectives' (2001) and Esther Derby and Diana Larsen's 'Agile Retrospectives' (2006).

Retained the classical five-stage retrospective framework and standard three-column board from the evidence. UWT specified strict time allocations for a 60-minute sprint cadence, explicit group constraints for up to 12 participants, and added structured hybrid accommodations.

[WorkshopBank](https://workshopbank.com/tools/retrospectives)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/retrospectives-workshopbank/