Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Retrospectives are the engine of continuous improvement in Agile—and you're being tested on more than just knowing format names. Exam questions will ask you to select the right retrospective format for specific team situations, explain why certain formats surface different types of insights, and demonstrate how retrospectives connect to Agile principles like inspect-and-adapt cycles, team empowerment, and iterative improvement. Understanding the mechanics behind each format helps you answer scenario-based questions with confidence.
Don't just memorize a list of retrospective names. Know what problem each format solves, whether it prioritizes emotional processing, root cause analysis, action planning, or visual thinking. When an exam question describes a team struggling with recurring issues, you need to instantly recognize that's a 5 Whys situation—not a Mad, Sad, Glad moment. Master the underlying purpose of each format, and you'll handle any retrospective question thrown at you.
These formats prioritize generating concrete next steps. They work by categorizing team observations into actionable buckets, making it easy to walk out of a retrospective with a clear improvement plan. The mechanism is simple: constraint breeds clarity.
Compare: Start-Stop-Continue vs. Starfish—both generate action items, but Starfish adds "Less" and "More" categories for nuanced adjustments. If an exam scenario describes a mature team needing subtle process tweaks, Starfish is your answer; for teams needing clear, simple direction, Start-Stop-Continue wins.
These formats prioritize psychological safety and team dynamics. They work by explicitly inviting emotional expression, which surfaces issues that purely analytical formats miss. The mechanism: naming feelings reduces their power and opens honest dialogue.
Compare: Mad, Sad, Glad vs. 4 Ls—both surface emotions, but 4 Ls adds cognitive dimensions (Learned, Longed For) that connect feelings to future action. Use Mad, Sad, Glad when team morale is the primary concern; use 4 Ls when you need emotional insight plus strategic direction.
These formats prioritize shared mental models through imagery. They work by giving teams a concrete visual anchor that makes abstract concepts discussable. The mechanism: metaphors bypass defensiveness and spark creative thinking.
Compare: Sailboat vs. Timeline—both create visual representations, but Sailboat emphasizes forces (what's helping vs. hindering) while Timeline emphasizes sequence (what happened when). Choose Sailboat for diagnosing current blockers; choose Timeline for understanding how you got here.
These formats prioritize root cause identification. They work by pushing teams past surface-level symptoms to uncover systemic issues. The mechanism: structured questioning prevents premature solution-jumping.
Compare: 5 Whys vs. Lean Coffee—5 Whys digs deep on a known problem, while Lean Coffee helps surface which problems deserve attention. If the exam describes a team that keeps fixing symptoms without lasting improvement, 5 Whys is the answer; if the team can't agree on what to discuss, Lean Coffee solves that first.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Generating clear action items | Start-Stop-Continue, Starfish, KALM |
| Surfacing team emotions | Mad, Sad, Glad, 4 Ls |
| Visual/metaphor-based reflection | Sailboat, Timeline, Three Little Pigs |
| Root cause analysis | 5 Whys |
| Democratic topic selection | Lean Coffee |
| New or time-constrained teams | Start-Stop-Continue, Mad, Sad, Glad |
| Mature teams needing nuance | Starfish, KALM, 4 Ls |
| Project-level (not sprint) retrospectives | Timeline, Three Little Pigs |
A team keeps implementing fixes that don't last—the same problems resurface sprint after sprint. Which retrospective format directly addresses this pattern, and why?
Compare and contrast Sailboat and 5 Whys: both help identify obstacles, but how do their approaches differ? When would you choose one over the other?
Which two formats explicitly include an aspirational or future-focused category (what the team wishes they had)? What exam scenarios would make these the right choice?
A Scrum Master is facilitating a retrospective for a newly formed team with low psychological safety. Which format category should they prioritize, and which specific format would you recommend?
If an FRQ asks you to recommend a retrospective format for a team that can't agree on what their biggest problem is, which format solves this—and what's the mechanism that makes it work?