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 Start Stop Continue |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 deliberately adjust its working behavior, it makes habits visible and assessable. It focuses on concrete changes instead of diffuse mood. | When a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-60 min | 45–75 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 | Team members involved | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam |