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 Sprint Retrospective |  Operations After-Action Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | After missions or project phases with unclear outcomes, the method makes visible what actually happened and what can be learned from it. It separates course, effect, and causes so experience turns into solid improvement. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | Up to 3 hours for a one-month Sprint; shorter Sprints are usually shorter | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | Scrum Team | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions | Improvement actions, Team agreements | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement | RetrospectiveImprovementLearning | LearningOperationsImprovement |