View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Operations Learning Review |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | After a project phase with mixed results, the method makes learning from the individual case reusable. It connects events, decisions, and systemic conditions into robust insights. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–75 min | 1-2 h | 1-3 h | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Team members involved | 4-12 | 3-10 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Learning Review Notes, System Factors, Improvement Actions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | LearningRetrospectiveIncidentOperations | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |