WWW: Worked Well, Kinda Worked, Didn't Work

The WWW Retrospective

Retrospectives play a pivotal role in the agile journey, offering teams a structured way to reflect on their progress and challenges. While there are numerous retrospective formats available, the WWW retrospective stands out with its clear and concise structure, making it an excellent choice for teams looking for straightforward reflections.

When to Choose WWW

The WWW format is particularly beneficial for teams that appreciate clarity and directness. If your team is looking for a no-frills approach to retrospectives, without getting bogged down by too many categories or nuances, WWW is a solid choice. It's also ideal for teams that are new to retrospectives or those looking to switch things up from more complex formats.

👍 Worked Well

Things that worked really well

This column celebrates the team's successes. It's an opportunity to highlight what went exceptionally well, be it a process, a strategy, or individual contributions. Recognizing these achievements not only fosters a positive team spirit but also sets a benchmark for future endeavors.

🤔 Kinda Worked

Things that need some tweaking

This section is for constructive reflection. It's about identifying areas that showed potential but might need a bit of refinement. Whether it's a new tool that's still being integrated or a strategy that's almost there but not quite, this column encourages iterative improvement.

👎 Didn’t Work

Things that did not work

Openness is key here. This column allows the team to discuss challenges faced, without any blame. It's about understanding the hurdles and strategizing on ways to overcome them in the subsequent sprints.

---

The simplicity of the WWW retrospective is its main strength. It provides teams with a clear framework to categorize their reflections, ensuring that discussions remain focused and actionable. As with all retrospective formats, the ultimate goal is continuous improvement, and the WWW format is a valuable tool in achieving that.

Start a WWW Retro View all retro templates

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the WWW retrospective template?

The WWW retrospective template (Worked Well, Kinda Worked, Didn't Work) is a straightforward three-column format that categorizes feedback by effectiveness level. Its unique feature is the middle "Kinda Worked" column, which captures practices that show promise but need refinement - a nuance often lost in binary good/bad formats. This makes WWW particularly valuable for teams who want to acknowledge partial successes and opportunities for optimization without dismissing efforts entirely.

When should you use the WWW retrospective template?

Use the WWW template when your team needs clarity and directness in retrospectives. It's ideal for teams new to retrospectives who want a simple structure, teams suffering from retrospective fatigue with overly complex formats, or when time is limited and you need focused discussions. The "Kinda Worked" column is particularly useful when experimenting with new practices that haven't fully matured yet, allowing the team to discuss refinements rather than premature abandonment.

How do you run a WWW retrospective meeting effectively?

To run an effective WWW retrospective, follow these steps:

• Set the stage - Start with a mood check-in to gauge team sentiment and play icebreaker music to create a comfortable atmosphere
• Brainstorm - Give 5-10 minutes for individual brainstorming. Team members add items to Worked Well, Kinda Worked, and Didn't Work columns anonymously for honest feedback
• Group and sort - Group and sort similar items together across all three columns
• Discuss and vote - Review grouped items and vote to prioritize which successes to celebrate, which partial successes to improve, and which failures to address
• Create action items - For "Worked Well" items, discuss how to maintain or scale them. For "Kinda Worked" items (the most important column), assign owners to refine these promising practices. For "Didn't Work" items, decide whether to fix, pivot, or abandon
• Share summary - Export and share the retro summary

The session typically takes 30-45 minutes. Focus extra attention on "Kinda Worked" - these represent your best optimization opportunities.

What makes a good WWW retrospective discussion?

Good WWW discussions recognize that most outcomes aren't binary:

• Worked Well - Celebrate specific wins and identify why they succeeded for future replication
• Kinda Worked - Focus on specific refinements needed. "Our new testing process kinda worked" becomes "Testing caught bugs but took too long - need to automate"
• Didn't Work - Discuss root causes without blame. Understand why something failed to avoid repeating mistakes

The "Kinda Worked" column is the secret weapon of WWW - it legitimizes discussing improvements to partially successful practices without the negativity of calling them failures.

How is WWW different from other retrospective formats?

WWW's "Kinda Worked" column sets it apart from other three-column formats. While Mad Sad Glad focuses on emotions and Start Stop Continue focuses on decisions, WWW creates a space for nuance. Many practices don't clearly succeed or fail - they partially work. WWW acknowledges this reality, preventing teams from either over-celebrating mediocre results or prematurely abandoning promising experiments. This makes it more realistic than binary formats while remaining simpler than five-column formats like Starfish.

What are the benefits of using the WWW retrospective template?

The WWW template offers several key benefits:

• Acknowledges nuance - "Kinda Worked" captures partial successes most formats miss
• Simple but not simplistic - Three columns are easy to understand while still capturing complexity
• Reduces defensiveness - "Kinda Worked" is less harsh than "Didn't Work", encouraging honest discussion
• Fast execution - Simpler than four or five column formats, making it ideal for time-constrained teams

WWW also naturally guides teams toward optimization mindset - the "Kinda Worked" column keeps focus on continuous improvement of promising practices rather than only celebrating wins or fixing failures.

What are some alternatives to the WWW retrospective template?

If you're looking for different retrospective formats and templates, consider these alternatives:

• KALM retrospective - When you need four columns (Keep, Add, Less, More) for more granular decisions about scaling practices up or down
• Start Stop Continue - When WWW feels too passive and you want action-oriented language that explicitly demands decisions
• Mad Sad Glad - When emotional dynamics are blocking progress and you need to surface feelings before discussing effectiveness

Each format serves different needs - WWW excels at capturing nuanced effectiveness while remaining simple and fast.