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 Starfish Retrospective |  Decision Making Decision Rights Mapping |  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 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. | In organizations with many stakeholders, it often blurs who actually decides and who is merely consulted. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Decision Rights matrix and an agreement. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 90-180 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 | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Decision Rights Matrix, Agreement | Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | DecisionGovernanceAlignmentResponsibility | RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection |