Projects and operations
Template: minutes from a review meeting
A minute template for retrospectives and project reviews, with what worked, what did not, what surprised you, and measures with an owner and a deadline.
MINUTES: REVIEW OF [project, period or delivery]
[date], [__.__]–[__.__] | [place or meeting format]
PRESENT
[Name, name, name]
WHAT WE SET OUT TO ACHIEVE
[The goal, as it was phrased when we started. Taken from the
kickoff document, not from memory.]
WHAT WE ACTUALLY ACHIEVED
[Short and checkable. Numbers where there are numbers.]
THIS WORKED
- [What, and why it worked. The reason is the part that can be repeated.]
THIS DID NOT WORK
- [What, and what the cause was. Describe the circumstance, not the person.]
THIS SURPRISED US
- [What nobody had foreseen. This is often the most valuable item,
because it points at blind spots in the planning.]
MEASURES
| # | Measure | Owner | Due | How we will see that it worked |
|---|---------|-------|-----|--------------------------------|
| 1 | | | | |
| 2 | | | | |
PASSED ON TO
[Who outside this team should know some of this, and who
tells them.]
Minutes taken by: [name]How to use it
- Take the goal from the kickoff document. Not from what people remember the goal was. The gap between the two is often the finding itself.
- Limit yourself to two or three measures. A list of twelve does not get carried out, and the next review starts with nothing having been done.
- Write how you will see that the measure worked. A measure with no sign of effect cannot be closed, and stays on the list for years.
- Describe circumstances, not people. A review that reads as an apportioning of blame makes the next review polite and worthless.
”This surprised us” is the item people skip
It is also the most valuable. What went wrong in a way nobody had foreseen points at a blind spot in how you plan, not just in this project. That is the kind of learning that actually transfers to next time.
Frequently asked questions
What worked, what did not, and measures with a name and a deadline. Without the last, the review becomes a conversation people felt was useful and that changed nothing.
Two or three. A list of twelve improvements does not get carried out, and the next retrospective starts with nothing from the last one having been done.
On measures, yes. On what went wrong, usually no. A review that reads as an apportioning of blame makes the next review polite and worthless.