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 |  Agile Sailboat 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 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 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. | 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 | Up to 3 hours for a one-month Sprint; shorter Sprints are usually shorter | 45-90 min | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | Scrum Team | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Improvement actions, Team agreements | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions | Lessons learned, Action items, Event summary |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveImprovementLearning | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement | LearningOperationsImprovement |