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 Sailboat 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 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 | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-12 | 1-6 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ProcessOperationsImprovement | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement |