Eastern Redcedar in crossection, with white sapwood on the outside edges, and red to deep reddish-brown heartwood. To reach sunlight in a forest canopy, trees must build trunk and branch structure that can support their topmost leaves and branches. The inner portion of the tree trunk, called heartwood, fulfills this structural function. Because of occasional storms, the structure that's in place at any given time must be stronger than is required for day-to-day operations. In other words, the tree must invest in support structure at levels beyond what are required at the time it makes the investment. They accomplish this by an iterative process. Each year, the outermost layer of cells of the trunk produce wood and bark. The most recently formed wood layers, the sapwood, conduct nutrients. As the tree ages, new layers of sapwood form, and the older layers die and become heartwood. Thus, the tree generates heartwood as a direct consequence of growth. This ensures that it will have the structural integrity it needs to support itself.
In organizations, retrospectives provide the new knowledge needed to ensure a sound foundation for growth. But unlike the heartwood of trees, organizations can conduct day-to-day affairs without simultaneously generating that foundational knowledge. In other words, the knowledge needed for growth is not produced as an intrinsic result of day-to-day operations. It is produced as an extrinsic activity, rather than an intrinsic activity. And that's why it receives inadequate investment. To ensure adequate investment in retrospectives, they must be transformed into an activity that is an intrinsic part of daily operations. Photo courtesy United States Department of Agriculture.
Most people believe that to learn how to do things better, we have to look at how we do them now. That's the fundamental idea of project retrospectives. But there are three problems. First, we don't always conduct retrospectives. Second, when we do, we don't always do a good job. Finally, we don't consistently use what we discover when we do conduct retrospectives. We can reach a better understanding of the causes of these three problems by examining this question: who pays for retrospectives?
Typically, projects pay for their own retrospectives — or more specifically, the sponsors do. But the interest of sponsors in retrospectives is often lukewarm at best. Many sponsors feel that retrospectives add little to the deliverables they're paying for, and which have already been delivered. They do add to future deliverables of other projects, and sponsors might benefit from that someday — or they might not.
The organization as a whole is the real beneficiary of retrospectives, especially when the issues uncovered are systemic. But typically, organizations don't consciously fund retrospectives — the Chart of Accounts has no line item for them. Since organizations don't pay for retrospectives explicitly, they don't value them. I call this the Retrospective Funding Problem.
But the Retrospective Funding Problem has a deeper cause. The drive for conducting retrospectives usually comes from project teams. Since the organization isn't the driver of retrospectives, the organization is at best ambivalent about them: "You can hold a retrospective, if you want, but we won't pay extra for it. And no travel."
For virtual teams, the problem is even worse. When all elements of the virtual team are under the same financial ownership, there is at least some chance that we can apply to virtual teams any solution to the Retrospective Funding Problem for co-located teams. But even for virtual teams under one owner, divisions and other organizational structures insert a separation of financial accountability that creates obstacles for financial support.
For virtual The organization as a whole is the
real beneficiary of retrospectives,
especially when the issues
uncovered are systemicteams of mixed financial ownership, we have an additional problem: confidentiality. What can actually be disclosed in the retrospective? If an issue arises from the processes of one participating enterprise partner, can team members who hail from that partner talk about it? This tangle reduces the ability to learn, limiting performance in future partnerships between the participating enterprises.
Addressing these problems is difficult, because the retrospective expenditure happens now, and the benefit arrives in future years — three to five years from now. Because the benefit delay coincides with the tenure of most managers, the benefits of retrospectives don't arrive during the tenures of the decision makers who support them.
Until the enterprise pays for retrospectives and truly understands their value, we'll probably just muddle along. 
Top 
Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and
found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Project Management:
See No Evil- When teams share information among themselves, they have their best opportunity to reach peak performance.
And when some information is withheld within an elite group, the team faces unique risks.
Communication Traps for Virtual Teams: I- Virtual teams encounter difficulties that rarely confront face-to-face teams. What special challenges
do they face, and what can we do about them?
Why Do Business Fads Form?- The rise of a business fad is due to the actions of both its advocates and adopters. Understanding the
interplay between them is essential for successful resistance.
Ego Depletion and Priority Setting- Setting priorities for tasks is tricky when we find the tasks unappealing, because we have limited energy
for self-control. Here are some strategies for limiting these effects on priority setting.
Defect Streams and Their Sources- Regarding defects as elements of a stream provides a perspective that aids in identifying causes other
than negligence. Examples of root causes are unfunded mandates, misallocation of the cost of procedure
competence, and frequent changes in procedures.
See also Project Management for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming July 16: Responding to Unwelcome Events- Unwelcome events have two kinds of effects on decision-makers. One set of effects appears as we respond to events that have actually occurred. Another set manifests itself as we prepare for unwelcome events that haven't yet occurred, but which might occur. Making a wrong decision in either case can be costly. Available here and by RSS on July 16.
And on July 23: Microdelegation- Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
My blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers
resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing
technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your
organization!
Bad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? Learn what we can do when we
love the work but not the job.Learn how to make your virtual global team sing.Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or
maybe even outright revolt?Learn how to make meetings more productive — and more rare.