The core of this Retrospective workshop pattern is to turn the qualitative and quantitative data review into a mystery for the teams to solve. This fosters engagement, removes blame, and encourages collaborative problem-solving. Mixing up the format keeps it engaging.
Part 1: The Scene of the Crime (Data Presentation)
Goal: Provide anonymous, puzzling data that hints at a specific team’s performance without revealing their identity.
Preparation (Before the Workshop)
Gather the “Clues”: Collect key agile metrics and data from the past Program Increment (PI), such as:
- Velocity charts (with names of teams removed and replaced with “Team A,” “Team B,” etc.).
- Planning Interval (PI) objective completion rates.
- Predictability measures.
- Lead time and cycle time data.
- Qualitative data from retrospectives (anonymised quotes about blockers, impediments, successes, etc.).
Create the "Case Files"
For each team, compile a unique case file. This file should contain a mix of their own data and some anonymised data from other teams to make the “clue” harder to solve. The file for Team A, for example, would include their actual velocity chart, labelled “Team A,” but might also contain an objectives completion chart from Team C, labelled “Team B.”
Set the Mood
Prepare a presentation with a “Clue” theme. Use phrases like “The Case of the Low Predictability” or “The Mystery of the Spiking Velocity.”
During the Workshop
The Briefing
Begin by explaining the game. Each small group will be a “Detective Agency” and will receive a case file. Their mission is to identify the root cause of the data anomalies, and then brainstorm solutions.
Distribute Case Files
Part 2: The Investigation (Small Group Analysis)
Goal: Teams collaborate to solve the mystery.
Deconstruct the Clues
The Briefing
Timebox: 30 minutes
Groups are asked to analyse the data in their case file. They should discuss and write down their answers to the three main questions:
- The Suspects: Based on the data, which team do we think this is? (This part is for fun and engagement, as they will likely figure out their own team, but the anonymity allows for an objective look.)
- The Motive: What is causing this data to look the way it does? What are the underlying problems or successes?
- The Plan: What actions can we take to (a) improve things (e.g., fix the low predictability) and/or (b) strengthen and make scalable the learnings (e.g., how to replicate high performance)?
Facilitator's Role
The Release Train Engineer (RTE) or Scrum Master acts as a “Chief Inspector,” circulating among the groups, asking probing questions, and ensuring they stay on track.
Part 3: The Verdict & The Interrogation (Share and Action Planning)
Goal: Bring everyone together to share their findings and decide on concrete actions.
The Reveal
Each group presents their findings (motive and plan) to the larger group.
Use the format:
“The data we analysed showed low predictability because… and our recommendations to fix this is…”.
This maintains the theme and the psychological distance from their own data.
The Action Plan
As a full group, facilitate a discussion to synthesise the findings.
Consolidate similar improvement items into a few key areas.
Dot vote on the top 1-3 improvements the Agile Release Train (ART) will commit to for the next Planning Interval (PI). Write these up as Features with Stories and ensure capacity is allocated in each team to implement these improvements.
Finalising
Document the agreed-upon improvement items and assign owners to ensure they are carried forward. This is a crucial step to make the learnings actionable.
Conclusions
Normal retrospectives like “stop, start, continue” and the standard Inspect & Adapt workshop format can get pretty boring pretty quickly.
By using this “Clue” theme, you will transform a potentially dry data Retrospective format into an engaging and effective collaborative event that promotes shared understanding and drives tangible improvements.
