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 Sprint 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 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 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 | Up to 3 hours for a one-month Sprint; shorter Sprints are usually shorter | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 | Scrum Team | 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 | Improvement actions, Team agreements | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection | RetrospectiveImprovementLearning | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam |