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 Sprint Retrospective |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  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 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. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | Up to 3 hours for a one-month Sprint; shorter Sprints are usually shorter | 1-3 h | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | Scrum Team | 1-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Improvement actions, Team agreements | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveImprovementLearning | SensemakingDecisionRationale | LearningOperationsImprovement |