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 Mad Sad Glad |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |  Agile Sailboat Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a team's or workshop's mood needs to become readable, it structures emotional signals with little setup. It makes strain, relief, and sources of energy tangible. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Emotion Board, Themes, Action Items | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | RetrospectiveTeamReflection | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement |