Project Retrospective

Project Retrospective

Overview

From the beginning of the semester to the MVP milestone, the project made visible progress, but the development process exposed several coordination and planning weaknesses. The main issue was not technical difficulty alone, but the lack of structured communication both within teams and between the frontend and backend teams. These problems affected task clarity, implementation timing, and overall project flow.

What Went Well

Frontend task organization

One of the stronger aspects of the project was the frontend team's internal organization. Tasks were assigned beforehand, so responsibilities were clear from the start. This reduced ambiguity and helped the team move in a more predictable and coordinated way.

Continuous technical progress

Despite communication issues, both teams continued implementing features and moving the project forward. Work was completed and issues were being closed, which shows that effort and technical contribution were present throughout the process.

What Went Badly / Unexpectedly

Lack of coordination within the backend team

The backend side did not have a clear job distribution at the beginning. Instead of having responsibilities assigned in advance, work often followed an informal pattern such as: “I will start this if no one else is doing it.” This created uncertainty, increased the chance of overlap or neglected tasks, and made the workflow less efficient.

Weak communication between frontend and backend teams

Although issues were being completed and closed, the two teams were not sufficiently aware of each other’s progress. In particular, the frontend team was not always aware of backend implementations that were necessary for frontend integration. As a result, issue tracking existed, but it was not functioning effectively as a communication tool across teams.

Late start and compressed execution

Another major problem was timing. The project started later than it should have, and a significant portion of the work was completed in the final days before the milestone. This created unnecessary pressure and reduced the team’s ability to iterate, test, and refine the system in a controlled way. Finishing many tasks as a last resort was not a sustainable or healthy development practice.

Effect on the Project Development Lifecycle

These issues had a direct impact on the project lifecycle:

• Planning phase: insufficient task definition and assignment, especially in the backend team.
• Execution phase: uneven awareness of dependencies between teams.
• Integration phase: reduced coordination between frontend and backend slowed down alignment.
• Final phase before MVP: too much work accumulated near the deadline, increasing stress and reducing process quality.

Overall, the development process became more reactive than planned. Instead of following a structured progression, the team often had to respond to missing coordination and time pressure.

Lessons Learned

Define issues and assignees at the beginning

At the start of the project, tasks should be converted into clear issues and each issue should have an explicit assignee. This prevents ambiguity and makes ownership visible.

Use issue activity as a communication mechanism

Opened and closed issues are not only project management artifacts; they are also a form of communication. Team members should follow issue activity closely so that completed work is visible to everyone, especially across frontend and backend boundaries.

Improve inter-team awareness

The two teams need a more deliberate communication structure. It should not be assumed that closing an issue automatically guarantees shared awareness. Dependencies between frontend and backend should be tracked more explicitly.

Be stricter about deadlines

Internal deadlines should be set clearly and followed more strictly. Work should be distributed across the project timeline instead of accumulating in the final days. This would allow more time for testing, coordination, and revision.

Conclusion

The retrospective shows that the main weakness of the project was coordination rather than motivation or technical effort. The frontend side benefited from clearer task allocation, while the backend side suffered from a lack of predefined responsibility sharing. More importantly, communication between the two teams was not strong enough for smooth integration. Going forward, the team should focus on early issue assignment, closer issue tracking, better inter-team visibility, and stricter adherence to deadlines.