methodatlas
Method guideAgile

4Ls Retrospective

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityLow
Time45–75 min
ParticipantsTeam members involved
FormatWorkshop
MaturityEstablished
Plan session
01

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstShared context

Period and goal are set.

Without a frame, contributions are hard to compare.
02

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Board, Stickies, Timer

People / roles

The facilitator explains the four Ls and protects voluntary contributions; participants write independently first; the scribe clusters themes and records actions.

Pre-read

Collect the Sprint or project cycle, milestones, and relevant artifacts beforehand.

Time needed

60 minutes

Setup

Prepare four blank columns: Liked, Learned, Lacked, and Longed For. Contributions are voluntary and describe work and effects.

03

Core question

The one question this method answers

What did we like, learn, lack, and long for, and which small improvement will we inspect afterward?

04

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

The 4Ls Retrospective makes valued experiences, learning, missing elements, and wishes visible. The shared reflection leads to agreed actions whose impact is reviewed later.

Working board

Fictional example

Structured board with a blank workspace and fictional example view.

Liked

Fictional: immediate reservation confirmation

The desk confirms reservations directly.

Learned

Fictional: device check prevents questions

The team learns from a repeatable flow.

Lacked

Fictional: return without network hard to see

A missing offline cue makes work harder.

Longed For

Fictional: clear offline guide

The team wishes for a compact guide.

Actions

Fictional: test guide with two returns

Kim checks the effect next cycle.

Safe and voluntary
Contributions describe work and effects; personal disclosure remains voluntary.

The 4 Ls Retrospective Technique | Atlassian

  1. 1

    Frame

    Clarify period and agreements

    Goal

    Set milestones, period, and conversation agreements without forced disclosure.

    Inputs for this step

    • Fictional tool-rental context
    • Shared observations

    Actions

    • Set milestones, period, and conversation agreements without forced disclosure.
    • Capture the result visibly.

    Output

    Period and agreements

    Period and agreements

    Quality check

    Is the step concrete, safe, and actionable?

    Pitfall

    The discussion stays generic or blames people. Return to observable work, effects, and the next check.

    Timing: 10–20 minutes

  2. 2

    Reflect

    Collect the four Ls

    Goal

    Collect independently: Liked, Learned, Lacked, and Longed For.

    Inputs for this step

    • Fictional tool-rental context
    • Shared observations

    Actions

    • Collect independently: Liked, Learned, Lacked, and Longed For.
    • Capture the result visibly.

    Output

    4Ls contributions

    4Ls contributions

    Quality check

    Is the step concrete, safe, and actionable?

    Pitfall

    The discussion stays generic or blames people. Return to observable work, effects, and the next check.

    Timing: 10–20 minutes

  3. 3

    Cluster

    Discuss patterns

    Goal

    Read contributions, cluster themes, and ask about effects without exposing individuals.

    Inputs for this step

    • Fictional tool-rental context
    • Shared observations

    Actions

    • Read contributions, cluster themes, and ask about effects without exposing individuals.
    • Capture the result visibly.

    Output

    Themes and learnings

    Themes and learnings

    Quality check

    Is the step concrete, safe, and actionable?

    Pitfall

    The discussion stays generic or blames people. Return to observable work, effects, and the next check.

    Timing: 10–20 minutes

  4. 4

    Choose

    Choose actions

    Goal

    Choose a few actions with owner, date, and a later check of their effect.

    Inputs for this step

    • Fictional tool-rental context
    • Shared observations

    Actions

    • Choose a few actions with owner, date, and a later check of their effect.
    • Capture the result visibly.

    Output

    Action plan

    Action plan

    Quality check

    Is the step concrete, safe, and actionable?

    Pitfall

    The discussion stays generic or blames people. Return to observable work, effects, and the next check.

    Timing: 10–20 minutes

  5. 5

    Follow-up

    Agree review and ownership

    Goal

    Prepare a clear follow-up review.

    Inputs for this step

    • Selected actions
    • Potential effect signals

    Actions

    • Record an owner, review date and observable signal for each selected action.
    • Confirm the agreement and choose where later results will be recorded.

    Output

    Agreed follow-up plan

    Action · owner · review date · signal · record location

    Quality check

    Are owner, review date and effect signal clearly agreed?

    Pitfall

    An action is marked done without checking effect. Schedule a later check in the next cycle.

    Timing: 5–10 minutes to agree follow-up

05

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

4Ls Retrospective · Liked, Learned, Lacked, Longed ForJointly sort positive, learning, missing, and desired aspects
4Ls Retrospective ArbeitsflächeDie Skizze zeigt vier Retrospektiv-Spalten für Liked, Learned, Lacked und Longed For mit anschließender Action-Auswahl.Vier Blickwinkel für eine ausgewogene RetroErst sammeln, dann Muster bilden und wenige nächste Verbesserungen auswählen.LikedWas lief gut?EnergieStärkenBehaltenLearnedWas haben wir gelernt?EinsichtAhaHypotheseLackedWas hat gefehlt?KlarheitZeitSupportLonged ForWas wünschen wir uns?FokusMutRitual1Cluster2Muster3Actions
Form

4Ls reflection board with contributions, milestones, themes, and a few actions with owner, date, and later effect check.

Versioning / ownership

Keep date, period, and owner on the artifact.

Tool alternatives
  • Whiteboard
  • Confluence page
  • Miro board with 4Ls columns

4ls-retrospective-working-template.md

Plan purpose, period, and the next work block.

4Ls Retrospective: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Whole flow Time: In one session

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

  • Materials: Board, Stickies, Timer
  • Roles: The facilitator explains the four Ls and protects voluntary contributions; participants write independently first; the scribe clusters themes and records actions.
  • Advance information: Collect the Sprint or project cycle, milestones, and relevant artifacts beforehand.
  • Overall time needed: 60 minutes
  • Setup: Prepare four blank columns: Liked, Learned, Lacked, and Longed For. Contributions are voluntary and describe work and effects.

Prepare for the work steps

Frame: Clarify period and agreements

  • Fictional tool-rental context
  • Shared observations

Reflect: Collect the four Ls

  • Fictional tool-rental context
  • Shared observations

Cluster: Discuss patterns

  • Fictional tool-rental context
  • Shared observations

Choose: Choose actions

  • Fictional tool-rental context
  • Shared observations

Follow-up: Agree review and ownership

  • Selected actions
  • Potential effect signals

Working board

Liked

...

Learned

...

Lacked

...

Longed For

...

Actions

...

Working policies

Safe and voluntary ...

The 4 Ls Retrospective Technique | Atlassian

Frame: Clarify period and agreements

Expected artifact: Period and agreements

Period and agreements

Entry:

...

  • Is the step concrete, safe, and actionable?

Reflect: Collect the four Ls

Expected artifact: 4Ls contributions

4Ls contributions

Entry:

...

  • Is the step concrete, safe, and actionable?

Cluster: Discuss patterns

Expected artifact: Themes and learnings

Themes and learnings

Entry:

...

  • Is the step concrete, safe, and actionable?

Choose: Choose actions

Expected artifact: Action plan

Action plan

Entry:

...

  • Is the step concrete, safe, and actionable?

Follow-up: Agree review and ownership

Expected artifact: Agreed follow-up plan

Action · owner · review date · signal · record location

Entry:

...

  • Are owner, review date and effect signal clearly agreed?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/4ls-retrospective/run-sheet

06

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

4ls-retrospective-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional 4Ls Retrospective: tool rental

Liked: The desk confirmed reservations immediately. Learned: A short device check prevents later questions. Lacked: Returns without network were hard to see. Longed For: A clear offline guide.

Action: Kim tests the guide with two returns; inspect the effect next cycle.

07

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow

  1. Clarify period and agreementsThe discussion stays generic or blames people.View in phase
  2. Collect the four LsThe discussion stays generic or blames people.View in phase
  3. Discuss patternsThe discussion stays generic or blames people.View in phase
  4. Choose actionsThe discussion stays generic or blames people.View in phase
  5. Agree review and ownershipAn action is marked done without checking effect.View in phase
08

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

All four Ls were offered as separate reflection prompts.
Contributions remain voluntary and describe work or effects.
Actions have an owner, date, and later effect check.
The four Ls remain reflection categories and are not presented as a metric.
Contributions and actions can be found again in the next cycle.

Method after Mary Gorman and Ellen Gottesdiener. 4Ls is attributed to Mary Gorman and Ellen Gottesdiener in agile retrospective practice. Curated with 1 sources.

Sources: The 4 Ls Retrospective Technique | Atlassian

Flow, timeboxes, and pitfalls are editorially curated practice recommendations based on the listed sources.

Where to go next?

Paper illustration for Learning Review.
Operations
Learning Review

Deepens the captured Learned points into a structured learning report.

Paper illustration for Impact Filter
Decision Making
Impact Filter

Sharpens the agreed longed-for measure into a concrete next step weighed by impact and risk.

Finished the method guide?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profileMore methods