The 5-Minute Project Post-Mortem
Capture what worked and what didn't without the meeting fatigue. Just 3 questions.
3 simple questions • Team responses • Under 5 minutes
Death by Sticky Notes: Why Most Retros Fail
Traditional retrospectives consume entire afternoons. Teams spend 90 minutes arranging virtual sticky notes into categories like "Start/Stop/Continue" or "Mad/Sad/Glad." By the time you've color-coded everything and voted on action items, nobody remembers what they actually learned.
The overhead kills the value. Complex retro frameworks—Sailboat, Starfish, Four Ls—require facilitation training, digital whiteboards with 27 features, and meeting rooms that stay booked for hours. Smaller teams skip retros entirely because they feel like bureaucratic theater.
The irony: most project learnings fit into three sentences. "The API integration took longer than expected." "Daily standups helped us catch blockers early." "We should have involved design sooner." That's it. You don't need sophisticated frameworks to capture these insights—you need a forcing function that takes 5 minutes.
This tool strips retrospectives down to essentials: three questions, team responses, instant snapshot. No categories. No voting. No action item tracking system. Just the fastest way to capture what matters before you move on to the next project.
Why These 3 Questions Are All You Need
Research on organizational learning shows that 80% of project insights come from three core reflections: successes to repeat, failures to avoid, and context worth remembering. Complex frameworks add process overhead without adding insight.
1. What worked well?
Identifies successes to replicate in future projects. When teams skip this question, they lose track of what's actually working and repeat experiments instead of building on wins.
Example responses: "Daily standups caught blockers early" • "Having design involved from day one prevented rework" • "The API documentation saved us debugging time"
2. What didn't work?
Surfaces failures and frustrations that teams otherwise suppress to seem positive. This isn't blame assignment—it's identifying patterns that slow teams down or create preventable problems.
Example responses: "Late-stage requirement changes forced rework" • "Unclear ownership led to duplicated effort" • "We underestimated integration complexity"
3. What should we remember next time?
Captures context and tradeoffs that won't be obvious six months later. This question prevents teams from repeating the same debates or making decisions without understanding past constraints.
Example responses: "Always budget 2x for third-party integrations" • "Customer feedback invalidates our assumptions—get it early" • "The team needs breaks between high-intensity projects"
These three questions don't require facilitation, frameworks, or follow-up meetings. Teams answer independently, responses aggregate into a shared snapshot, and you move on with documented learnings instead of vague feelings about "what we should do better next time."
When to Run a Quick Retrospective
End of Sprint
Capture sprint learnings in 5 minutes instead of scheduling a separate 90-minute retro meeting. Run this at the end of sprint review to close with documented insights.
Incident Review
After resolving production incidents, capture what went wrong and what prevented faster resolution. Document learnings while they're fresh, not in a meeting scheduled weeks later.
Client Project Wrap-Up
Before rolling off a client project, document what worked for future client engagements. Capture context about constraints, surprises, and effective approaches.
Product Launch Debrief
After shipping a major feature or product, capture launch learnings before the team disperses. What went smoothly? What caused last-minute chaos? What context matters for the next launch?
Workshop or Offsite Closing
End multi-day workshops by having participants capture key takeaways independently. Aggregates insights without requiring another hour of group discussion.
Quarterly Planning Review
Before starting next quarter's planning, run a quick retro on the previous quarter. What strategies worked? What didn't deliver expected results? What patterns should inform next quarter?
Ready to Run a 5-Minute Retrospective?
Create a session, share the link, and get team responses to 3 simple questions. No facilitation required.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you run a 5-minute retrospective?
Create a retro session, share the link with your team, and have everyone independently answer three questions: "What worked well?", "What didn't work?", and "What should we remember next time?" Responses aggregate into a shared snapshot immediately. No facilitation, no sticky notes, no voting on action items. The entire process—from creating the session to viewing results—takes under 5 minutes for most teams.
What's the difference between a post-mortem and a retrospective?
Post-mortems traditionally happen after failures or incidents to identify root causes and prevent recurrence. Retrospectives happen regularly (like after sprints) to capture general learnings and improve processes. This tool works for both—the three questions apply whether you're reviewing a production incident or closing a successful project. The key difference from traditional approaches: this tool focuses on capturing insights quickly rather than lengthy analysis sessions.
What are free alternatives to Parabol and Miro for retrospectives?
Parabol and Miro offer feature-rich retro boards with templates, voting, and action tracking—but they require time investment and often feel overwhelming for quick reflections. Lightweight alternatives include simple form-based retro tools (like this one), shared Google Docs with structured prompts, or Slack threads with specific questions. The best alternative depends on whether you need sophisticated facilitation features or just fast insight capture. For 5-minute retros, simpler tools work better than complex boards.
Should retrospective responses be anonymous?
It depends on team dynamics. Anonymous responses encourage honesty—people are more likely to mention management issues, interpersonal friction, or process failures when their names aren't attached. Non-anonymous responses create accountability and make follow-up discussions easier. This tool shows responses without attribution by default, focusing on the insights rather than who said what. Teams can optionally add names if they prefer transparency.
What do you do with retrospective results?
The primary value is having documented learnings accessible when planning similar projects. Teams often review past retros before starting new work to avoid repeating mistakes. Some teams extract action items from "What didn't work?" responses and track them separately. The key is keeping retro results lightweight and searchable—avoid creating elaborate follow-up systems that make teams reluctant to run retros in the first place.
How many people need to respond for useful results?
Even 2-3 responses provide value—if multiple people independently mention the same issue, it's worth addressing. For larger teams (10+ people), you'll see clearer patterns and more diverse perspectives. The three-question format works at any scale because it focuses on capturing individual insights rather than requiring group consensus or complex facilitation.
Do I need to create an account?
No. The quick retrospective tool is completely free and requires no signup. Click "Start Quick Retro," share the link with your team, and view aggregated responses as they come in. Sessions are temporary and disposable—use it after every sprint, project, or incident without any friction or data accumulation.