View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Agile Sailboat Retrospective |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |  Agile Sprint 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. | 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 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. | When a sprint is over and friction shouldn't simply be carried forward, it opens the view onto collaboration and patterns. It creates space to see causes and changes together. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 45–75 min | Up to 3 hours for a one-month Sprint; shorter Sprints are usually shorter |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | Team members involved | Scrum Team |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions | Improvement actions, Team agreements |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam | RetrospectiveImprovementLearning |