Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Starfish Retrospective Sailboat Retrospective A/B Testing

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Agile Starfish Retrospective	Agile Sailboat Retrospective	Growth A/B Testing
Purposedifferent	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	When improvement options need to be sorted more finely than just start and stop, it brings observations into clear kinds of action. This makes visible what should be done more, less, newly, or continued.	When a team wants to read momentum, brakes, and risks together, it offers an easily understandable picture of the situation. It makes drive, obstacles, and headwind visible in the same picture.	When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	Low	Low	High
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-90 min	45-90 min	1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	4-12	4-12	1-6
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop	Async
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments	Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions	Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam	RetrospectiveTeamImprovement	ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation

Add more methods