View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 45–75 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 4-12 | Team members involved | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |