Post-project retrospective
For: Anyone wrapping a project, launch, or initiative — solo or with the team
The project is over. The lessons are about to disappear. A 12-question retrospective on what worked, what didn't, what you'd change — and what you'll actually carry forward.
- 12 questions
- 4 dimensions
- ~4-5 min
- Self · Peer · Both
Most retrospectives end up as either a polite 'what could've gone better' round or a blame ledger. The useful retrospective is neither — it separates outcome from decision quality, surfaces the experience the team had (not just the leader's view), and ends with specific commitments small enough to actually happen. This template runs that retrospective in 12 questions across four dimensions. Send it to yourself first to get an honest read; send it to the team if you want the experience-side data the operator never sees on their own.
How it works
Run it on yourself within a week of the project closing — the lessons fade fast. Then send it to the people who were on it: collaborators, stakeholders, direct reports who were assigned to it. The most valuable section is usually the team-experience block — what people were carrying that they never raised in flight.
What's inside — 12 questions across 4 dimensions
What landed and what didn't
outcome vs intent, beyond the headline result
Decisions revisited
were the calls good calls, knowing what we know now?
Team experience
how the people on it felt going through it
Forward
what specifically you'll change next time
The questions, in full
Every question is included below. You answer them yourself first, then send the same set to the people who've seen you work.
What landed and what didn't
- Q1Rating (1-5)
This project achieved what it was set up to achieve.
- Q2Multiple choice
Looking back, the gap between expected outcome and actual outcome was...
- — Smaller than expected — we mostly hit it
- — About what I'd expect for this kind of work
- — Bigger than expected, but for understandable reasons
- — Bigger than expected, and surprising in hindsight
- — We never had a clear expectation to compare against
- Q3Rating (1-5)
I can articulate clearly what this project did and didn't deliver — beyond the headline outcome.
Decisions revisited
- Q4Rating (1-5)
The big decisions on this project were good decisions — even knowing what we know now.
- Q5Rating (1-5)
We had the information we needed to make those decisions — or got it when we needed it.
- Q6Open answer
Which decision, in hindsight, would you make differently — and what would you need to know earlier to have called it differently in the moment?
Team experience
- Q7Rating (1-5)
People on this project could surface concerns, disagreements, and bad news without it costing them.
- Q8Rating (1-5)
The pace of this project was sustainable — people didn't burn out to deliver it.
- Q9Rating (1-5)
There's an honest read on what the worst parts of this project were for the people on it — not just the polished version.
Forward
- Q10Rating (1-5)
I have a clear, specific list of things I'd do differently next time — not vague generalities.
- Q11Multiple choice
If I had to point to ONE thing this project changed about how I'll approach the next one, it'd be...
- — How I scoped it from the start
- — How I made decisions along the way
- — How I communicated with the team or stakeholders
- — How I paced myself or the team
- — I don't think it changed much, honestly
- Q12Open answer
What's one habit, ritual, or rule you want to carry into the next project — and what's one thing you want to leave behind?
The research behind these questions
Drawn from Norman Kerth's Project Retrospectives on the discipline of structured post-project review, Atul Gawande's research at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard School of Public Health on learning culture and honest postmortems (Better), Annie Duke's work on separating decision quality from outcome (Thinking in Bets / Quit), Amy Edmondson's research at HBS on psychological safety as the precondition for honest retrospection (The Fearless Organization), and Brigid Schulte's New America research on sustainable pace (Overwhelmed). Each question targets a specific signal — outcome, decision quality, lived experience, or commitment — without conflating them.
References
- — Norman Kerth — Project Retrospectives: A Handbook for Team Reviews
- — Atul Gawande — Better (Brigham and Women's / Harvard School of Public Health)
- — Annie Duke — Thinking in Bets / Quit
- — Amy Edmondson — The Fearless Organization (Harvard Business School)
- — Brigid Schulte — Overwhelmed (New America)
Ready to run this round on yourself?
Sign up, pick this template, answer it about yourself, and send the same questions to the people who've been in the room with you. The gap between your view and theirs is where the actual learning lives.