Why FigJam for retrospectives
Context and problem statement
As part of the design and development cycle for the Seedcase Project, we work in iterations which generally run for about three weeks. At the end of each iteration, we have a retrospective meeting where we discuss what went well, what didn’t go well, and what we can improve. After having worked with an external consultancy, we have been using FigJam for our retrospectives because the consultants we worked with suggested it and used it themselves. This has been a great tool for us to collaborate and share our thoughts and ideas. However, we need to make a decision on whether we should continue using FigJam for our retrospectives or if we should use an alternative tool.
Decision drivers
The decision to look at our retrospective tool was primarily driven by the fact that the FigJam board we use is hosted by the consultancy company we worked with at the end of 2023 to early 2024. We were assured that we are more than welcome to keep using it, but it means that we don’t have full control over it, nor is it a sustainable long-term solution. We should have a board where we are the owners, and which can’t suddenly disappear because someone decides that former clients should no longer have access to their accounts. To start with, we were convinced that we couldn’t use the free version of FigJam, so we started looking for alternatives. We collected information on a variety of online open access tools, but more importantly, collated a list of requirements and features that we need for our retrospectives. Towards the end of investigating into other tools, we learned that with the free version of FigJam, we will still have access to the features we need.
Requirements
The requirements and features we identified as necessary for a good retrospective session can be divided up into three categories.
The first is the creation of the issues (‘what was good’, ‘what can we improve’) on virtual post-its, the second the organisation of these cards, and the third the overall functionality of the board.
We have not assigned a priority to these features at this point in time, as we expect to continue with the current solution, but should we in future wish to change then we will need to make a prioritised list.
Cards
The following features are needed for the cards:
- They should be easy to create, edit, and delete.
- They should not have a maximum length (or it should be quite long).
- They should be movable.
- They should have clear ownership.
- They should be easy to read.
- They should be able to have different colours.
Organisation of cards
The following features are needed for the organisation of the cards:
- It should be easy to group cards.
- It should be possible to keep groups of cards visually separate.
- It should be possible to move groups of cards.
- It should be possible to add comments and actions to cards.
- There should not be a maximum length for comments.
- It should be easy to convert cards to actions/issues.
- It should be easy to navigate the board and get a visual overview of the cards.
At present we don’t see a need to be able to vote on cards, and likewise there is no need to archive or search for specific cards. This could change and should not be discarded as possible features for the future.
Board functionality
The overall functionality of the board and individual sessions should include the following:
- It should be possible to save a retrospective session.
- This could include a timer function to keep the session on track.
- It should be possible to archive a session, so that it is easy to refer back to it.
- It should be possible to share the board with all participants.
- It should be possible to follow board activity on screen for all participants.
- It should be possible to have multiple users on the board at the same time.
- The board should be accessible to all participants at all times.
- The board should be hosted online, so that it is easy to access from anywhere, and not dependent on a specific machine to be running.
- It would be nice to have a number of fun elements (stickers, emojis, etc.) to make the session more engaging.
We don’t see a need for audio or chat functionality at present, as we are using Discord for the meeting itself. This could change in the future, and should not be discarded as possible features for the future.
Considered options
There is a list of open source retrospective tools available at Project Management Planet, which we used as a starting point. To see a brief overview of the tools we looked at, see the original issue on GitHub: Seedcase Project Team Issue 184. There are 10 tools on the list, and there is a brief description of them in the issue comment. We have narrowed it down to three that we will take a slightly closer look at, alongside FigJam.
Scrumlr
Scrumlr was assessed using their online demo, which is easy to start with. We did read their documentation, but that is only concerned with the installation of the software, so not a lot of help to us. The online test version can be used by more than one person, and it has multiple templates to chose from, the one we looked at was the Start-Stop-Continue, which adds the Actions column automatically. Scrumlr allows for users to create a board either with or without an account.
Benefits
- Cards are easy to create, edit, and delete once you figure out that clicking on a card will open it up.
- Cards show the author and allows for other users to add emojis to them.
- Cards allow for a lot of text.
- The board allows multiple users to be on it at the same time and provides a timer function.
- There is an Actions column and all columns can be renamed as well as more columns added if needed.
- It is possible to export a board into various formats, and the invitation link works even if all users have closed the board.
Drawbacks
- It is not possible to group cards in a way that allows you to read all of them on the screen at the same time.
- Cards only show the first three lines of text.
- Because of the column layout it is not possible to move groups of cards in a way that allows for more than one or two groups to be visible at the same time.
- It is not possible to change the colour (they are all white).
- It is at present not clear how long a board is stored for, so it would need to be exported after each session, making it more difficult to refer back to previous sessions.
Retro tool
We tested Retro Tool using their online version, which is easy to use, and comes with a very short set of documentation. The board has a standard layout which consists of four columns: ‘It worked well’, ‘We could improve’, ‘I want to ask about’, and for the final step ‘We need to do’. The session is divided into four steps, ‘Brainstorm’, ‘Group and Vote’, ‘Add action items’, and ‘Done’. You will need to move through these steps and there is no option to move back. It is not possible to create an account, which also means that you have no way of knowing who wrote which card.
Benefits
- It is easy to create and delete cards.
- The cards are easy to read.
- It is easy to group cards, and all cards are visible on the screen at the same time.
- It is possible to moved groups of cards, although they can’t be moved between columns.
- It is possible to fit quite a few cards on the screen, making an overview easy.
- It is possible to change the url to a custom format, thus making it easier to share.
- There is an export function at the end.
- If using the custom url, it is possible to return to the board at a later date, although it is not clear how long the board is stored for.
- It is possible to share the board, and for more than one user to work on it, although once you’ve moved to the next step you can’t go back.
Drawbacks
- Cards can’t be edited.
- There is no obvious functionality to show who the author of various cards is.
- It is not possible to move cards from one column to another.
- There is no timer function.
- The cards are not actually shown as cards (but as numbered comments), so it is impossible to change the colour of them.
- It is not possible to add comments to cards.
- The export function just creates a text file with all the cards.
- There are no frills or entertaining features.
Refacto
We tested Refacto using their online version. It is slightly unclear if this corresponds to the version that the team behind it is promoting on their GitHub site. The site requires a login for the first user, subsequent users can access the board using the customised URL and password. The board has a standard layout which consists of three columns: ‘I’m glad that’, ‘I’m wondering about’, and ‘It wasn’t so great that’. Below the three columns is a section for Action Items, which looks like the items from previous sessions will be available.
Benefits
- Cards are easy to create, edit, and delete.
- Cards have a maximum length, but it is quite long (over 2000 characters).
- All participants can see which card is being discussed.
Drawbacks
- Cards can’t be moved within columns and they can’t be moved between columns.
- Cards can’t be grouped.
- Cards do not show who the author is.
- The colour of the cards can’t be changed.
- It is not possible to associate comments to cards.
- A card is greyed out once it has being discussed.
- If a couple of cards contain a lot of text it becomes difficult to keep an overview of the board.
- It would be difficult for more than one person to edit the board at any given time.
FigJam
Benefits
- As the requirements and features we identified as necessary for a good retrospective session are based on our current use of FigJam, we have not listed them here.
Drawbacks
- The layout we have used so far does make it difficult to keep an overview of each individual session as it grows.
- It is not obvious if it would be possible to export the boards in a way that would make it easy to search through them at a later date.
Decision outcome
We have decided to continue using FigJam for our retrospectives. The functionality offered in the free version of the product is more than enough for our needs, and we are happy with the tool. We will continue to use it until such time as we find that it no longer meets our needs, or until we find a better tool. This is mainly due to the fact that we are familiar with the tool, and that we have been able to move our existing archive of boards to our own account.