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 CommentsSailboat RetrospectiveArchitecture Decision RecordStarfish Retrospective
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Agile Sailboat Retrospective |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  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. | 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. | 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 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 | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 1-3 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam |