Tutorial: Getting to Know the New Sprint Evaluation & Retrospective Process

Now that the sprint planning checklists have been moved to Monday.com, there have been changes to the Sprint Evaluation & Retrospective Process.

In order to assist with that, I have created a video to guide you through the new process.

I hope you find this helpful

[ Log time on SE-4095 ]


@nizar Thanks for the tutorials! It’s really useful to be able to see it through a video like this, nice demos :slight_smile:

One question about the retrospectives - if the discussions and votes happen on Monday.com, won’t we lose some visibility compared to using the forum to have those discussions? I guess we could use the Monday.com notifications to ensure visibility – but that relies on everyone setting up to receive the notifications from there, no? And I’ve noticed Monday.com can be pretty noisy, and doesn’t thread the notifications they send - how is it best to handle that?

1 Like

That’s a good point that I didn’t have in mind, to be honest. They can be extremely noisy with the pings, as you mentioned. In addition, the email notifications might not be enabled by everyone.

However, there’s a nice guide on monday.com explaining how notifications work. It provides many ideas that we can try in order to help resolve this issue with the visibility.

Here are some different ways that we can address the issue:

  • We can prepare a tutorial video to introduce members to their inbox, and how to filter their inbox using the “Filter by Board” option or the “Inbox View Options” based on their needs. This would make it extremely easy for members to spot any updates that have happened on a specific board.

  • We can also rely on email for discussions instead of monday.com if necessary… There’s a method to easily add updates to a specific item in Monday.com directly from email, without having to open monday.com and discuss the issue from there. We can utilize that to discuss the retrospective over email, yet still keep track of the discussion in monday.com. (although I don’t recommend it, since we’ll have to cc multiple monday.com emails based on the number of retrospective items, and the discussions there will be kind of duplicated across all the different retrospective items).

  • We can look into integrating monday.com with the forum, so that a forum post is automatically created about the different sprint evaluations.

  • We can look into using Webhooks to create our own email notifications regarding the sprint retrospective updates, or pretty much any update on monday.com.

Also, there’s the option where we just continue using the forum until we have the new solution which would eventually have a better way to handle this stuff.

What are your thoughts on that @antoviaque?

@nizar maybe we could use monday.com for collecting and voting on retrospective items, and then import them to the forum for further discussion?

That is also possible, but I thought that having the voting on the forum would be nice that way it would be in the same place as the discussions. Sometimes my vote would get affected based on the discussions, so having to open a different platform to make the changes is a bit annoying.

But if other members also find this as a more appropriate solution, we can definitely look into it :+1:

@nizar I was about to suggest what @swalladge said :slight_smile: After all, Monday.com is useful to replace the retrospective spreadsheet in any case already, and keeping the vote there removes a manual step when posting about it on the forum. The discussions themselves, as well as the announcement of the vote, could be the bit to keep on the forum, since that’s what is more directly related to the notifications. We can also experiment different ways though, and see what sticks…

@antoviaque sure then, I think we can get started with that starting next sprint.

cc sprint managers (@pooja, @mtyaka, @giovannicimolin)

1 Like

@nizar With the sprint evaluations the ratings for “things that went well” items seem to be tied to the ratings for “things that need improvement” items based on who added the pair of items to the retrospective. Is that a bug or just an artifact of the small set of items in your demo?

@kahlil hmm :thinking: I’m not sure I understood what you’re referring to, to be honest. The rating field is for your whole sprint, and the other fields are sort of a reason or justification as to why the rating is where it is at. Would you mind further clarifying your question please?

Sorry @nizzar, my description was a bit convoluted. I spent a bit of time trying to explain myself before I realized I was conflating “votes” with “ratings”. :man_facepalming: It all makes sense now :smiley:

Another point occurs, though:

In the evaluation form we ask for “Things that could be improved”, which suggests that multiple, distinct items could be entered. How do we plan to handle this? We would want to vote on each item separately I think. Does “monday.com” support dynamic forms where you can “add another item”? Or should we change the language to make it clear that only one item can be entered? Perhaps “Something that could be improved”?

No worries! :smiley:

Oh yeah… Right. We do want only one point to be entered, and if you have multiple points to submit multiple ratings, which makes things kind of weird.

Unfortunately, they don’t.

I think that’s going to be our best option.
But we can also teach members to add separate items directly to the Sprint Retrospective board, in case there are multiple items that need to be improved.

If I’m not mistaken we can also separate things into two different forms, but I’m still hesitant about the two different forms. How would you feel about two different forms btw?

  • not affected
  • support
  • against

0 voters

Maybe skip the form altogether and just get people to add comments to the board directly. That does not seem any harder than adding comments to the old restrospectives spreadsheet. Can we style up the board so that option is easy and attractive?

We can’t, but the board is already easy to deal with. We can have the group where they can add their answers at the top.

@pooja @mtyaka @giovannicimolin as sprint managers, what are your thoughts on this?

@team sorry for the global ping. But please disregard the Sprint Evaluations and Sprint Retrospective on Monday.com and stick with the previous sprint evaluation process (which you should already have done when utilizing the link to the mid-sprint evaluation and the end of sprint evaluation forms).

There’s a small detail that we missed, which kind of makes the whole process much more complex. We’ll be discussing this on the forum in SE.241

Sorry about that! :man_facepalming:

1 Like

@nizar, I am not entirely sure what these evaluation forms/processes are? Can you clarify?

The sprint evaluation is the “sprint checkup form”. This is what I’m referring to. Let me know if you’d like me to link to the exact item in the checklist template :+1:

@nizar, isn’t the “sprint checkup form” the one that we have on Google Forms? Have we switched from that to Monday.com? Asking because I now see a couple of new boards on Monday.com named “Sprint evaluation” and “Sprint retrospective”.

This will affect the “Compile and post the stress stats and analysis” task done every sprint by the cell sustainability managers. CC @daniel @raul

Yes it is.

I’m hoping to switch it to Monday.com to be honest. That was the goal, but seems like we have a “user experience issue” which prevents us from doing so at the moment (linking the issue from the monday.com task to the form)

I showcased the forum and mentioned it in the video tutorial

Yes, I am aware. I also mentioned in the tutorial video that you can compile the stats using the Dashboards.

Anyway, in order to make sure this doesn’t affect sustainability managers negatively, I’m going to schedule a meeting with you, @daniel, and @raul to discuss this and come to a decision quicky.

Until there’s an announcement to switch to the new system, please use the existing one: bi-weekly checkup form.
In monday.com, that step has a Link field with the link to the form.

1 Like