View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Process Mapping |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |  Growth A/B Testing |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With a confusing workflow that has many handoffs, the method makes the actual process visible. It shows where work is passed on, delayed, or duplicated, so improvement targets the right spots. | 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 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45–75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-12 | 1-6 | Team members involved |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessOperationsImprovement | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam |