View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Request for CommentsArchitecture Decision RecordSailboat RetrospectiveStarfish Retrospective
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Agile Sailboat Retrospective |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | 4-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam |