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 Starfish Retrospective |  Agile Start Stop Continue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 a team wants to deliberately adjust its working behavior, it makes habits visible and assessable. It focuses on concrete changes instead of diffuse mood. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection |