Reading/Strategy/Strategy Phase One Retro

Strategy Phase One Retro
In attendance: Brian G, Bryan D, Kaity, Kristen, Moushira, Josh, JK, Adam Baso, Anne G, Toby

Worked Well

 * breaking into groups
 * having a framework/model
 * Flexibility and openness were helpful
 * TPGEEEENIUS
 * in-person kickoff +1
 * Josh's orientation
 * Adam and Kristen just started it while I was on vacation
 * Kristen's faciliation -- hard to imagine this working without it +1+1+1
 * Everyone's openmindedness and effort -- thanks! "no strategy grinches"
 * Touch points with execs, "taking a step back" (reviewing with stakeholders) <<Could we do this with Community, too?
 * structure and process were absolutely critical
 * cross disciplines included
 * Nice to get some cross-team/cross-discipline time to work together - it was very effective
 * identifying all problems, even ones we couldn't solve ourselves++++
 * defining scope of team's reach through process
 * hard deadlines for cascades was crucial to getting things dun
 * Video
 * We actually have a strategy now - it worked
 * re-using a methodology that is mainly directed for a pure commercial use case, wasn't bad :-)
 * Community updates +
 * Kickoff meetings worked well on-site (would like to know how it was for the off-site folks)
 * Relative to other discussions and processes of this type, this felt pretty collaborative and well-communicated both within and outside of WMF walls - I hope we can continue to build on this and imrpove and learn+
 * Book grew on me+ (facilitator's guide was lacking in some areas eg time commitments and some discussion pre-reqs, see below)
 * team members were able to come in and out of process sometimes as needed (and different people led at different times)

Could Improve Next Time

 * Three days would have been better than two for the onsite
 * Problem definition could have been timeboxed
 * Documentation could have been better
 * converting in-person and physical artifacts to a coherent narrative was challenging
 * Jargon/MBA-ness+1 ++(it might help to roll the stages out more slowly, not overwhelming everyone with all the stuff at once)
 * Hard to track timeline/deliverables - central place for deadlines
 * Trying different strategies (approaches?) for engagement, for requesting feedback (in hindsight, plan for specific points of engagement)+
 * Ask for problems on-wiki up front (as opposed to cascade levels 1-3)
 * Try different channels of communications in addition to wikis
 * Do have 2-3 community members deeply involved in the process (very cool idea)
 * Make better decisions on "document everything" vs "smart messaging"
 * executive buy-in timing flexibiltiity, coulda used more
 * more discussion of values up-front (eg privacy vs serving users throguh data analysis)
 * trim options more up-front
 * More inclusion of teams/community in brain storming phase (what we did in the on-site meetings)+1
 * need more skeptics - more community invovlement? (you need measured feedback so would need longer commitment)
 * Industry analysis should have been done before-hand+
 * Industry analysis could have been a more explicit focus during onsite
 * went from super fast cascade drafts with tests to much slower+ more expliicit about who owns what stages
 * Switch from ideation to reducing possibilites seemed quick and may have missed some ideas from the "big wall of ideas" stage (transition phases were lossy)
 * Not being there for kickoff (anne)
 * Calendars accidental exclusion - google group! FTW
 * having to read a book, whatevs.
 * Probably this could still happen: We need to transfer the experience to the rest of the teams in WMF.
 * underestimated cost/size of tests (tried to accommodate them, but in the end, we didn't) - tests are a lot of work, exec pressure led to announcement before testing
 * Schedule slips - didn't stick to published calendar on wiki, hindered ability to get tests kicked off
 * seemed very time consuming (but worthwhile?) - challenges of doing this while also continuing business as usual, could we have paused and just focused on strategy?
 * faciliatator guide weak in important places and unrealistic on timing ++