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 Starfish Retrospective |  Agile Sailboat 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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-60 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 | 4-12 | 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 | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement |