View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Knowledge Modeling Feynman Technique |  Delivery Shape Up |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The Feynman Technique checks understanding by explaining a topic so that it stays easy for others to understand. It makes knowledge gaps visible before they become costly in everyday work. | Shape Up helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow. It makes work boundaries and decisions explicit and captures results as pitches, bet-table decisions, and hill charts. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 20-60 min | 6 Wochen Cycle + 2 Wochen Cool-Down | 45-90 min | 45–75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 | 2-4 pro Pitch | 3-10 | Team members involved |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Plain-language Explanation, Knowledge Gaps, Study Notes | Pitches, Bet-table decisions, Hill charts, Cooldown outcomes | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | LearningKnowledgeUnderstanding | PlanningDeliveryAutonomy | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam |