Team Practices Group/Retrospectives/Team Health Check - FY2015Q3
The Team Practices Group (TPG) was dissolved in 2017.
This page is obsolete. It is being retained for archival purposes. It may document extensions or features that are obsolete and/or no longer supported. Do not rely on the information here being up-to-date. |
What worked well
edit- conversational nature of the exercise proved insightful and enlightening
- reputation of THC preceded it - new teams were excited to go through the process
- revised focus areas worked well - nothing crashed and burned
- getting people in a room to talk is going to surface interesting, valuable stuff
- quarterly is about the right frequency
- tech lead from app team wants to do it monthly!
- 90 minutes felt like the right amount of time
- research and data got through it quicker this time
- teams who've been through it seem to be much more comfortable with it- went smoother
- calling it "THC" ;-)
- I think we got the setup and facilitation documented well enough
- new rating scale, generally speaking
- helped with facilitation
- Seeing several THC's was very helpful before running one
- Genericized (non-tech) revisions seemed to work
- Language Eng team was especially delightful; great sense of rhythm allowing eachother to speak, listening well - perhaps because fully remote team and they have specific communication practices to enable that - some nugget of wisdom to the 'we are all remote' thing
- Kevin met with one team lead immediately after, to reflect and try to come up with action items
What puzzles us?
edit- how do we start measuring that the health check is accomplishing anything?+
- mission and goals being lumped together caused confusion
- people getting hung up on semantics of focus areas - eg communication internal to the team vs external to the team
- Why doesn't TPG do the THC?
- Can we cross-polinate the THC - eg have different TPGers facilitate different teams? Is it best for us to facilitate with the teams we usually work with?
What didn't work well?
edit- lack of coherency of sequencing of the focus areas+++ [kevin]
- in some cases, the focus area examples were anti-examples++ [kristen]
- 90 minutes was too long for one group, and too short for a few others (time management)+J+ [arthur]
- Doing it before the quarter is over caused some confusion/tension+J
- rank the focus areas before discussing them?+
- privacy concerns about etherpad (raised by at least 2 teams)+J
- fun, quality, value, community involvement, destiny (as a result of org changes/C2A), pace
- new rating scale as words - numerous folks preferred to use numbers (eg 1-5)
- people still wanted to use half-points on the scale
- facilitating two health checks back-to-back; including one team that was especially challenging - scheduling
- Rushing at the end of the session isn't healthy
- Communication has to span incoming/outgoing AND in-team/WMF/external, so 6 areas