Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Start Stop Continue ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Starfish Retrospective Mad Sad Glad

Criterion	Agile Start Stop Continue	Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)	Agile Starfish Retrospective	Agile Mad Sad Glad
Purposedifferent	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.	ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation.	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's or workshop's mood needs to become readable, it structures emotional signals with little setup. It makes strain, relief, and sources of energy tangible.
Complexitydifferent	Low	High	Low	Low
Timedifferent	30-60 min	Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope	45-90 min	30-60 min
Participantsdifferent	3-12	Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders	4-12	3-10
Formatdifferent	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions	Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations	Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments	Emotion Board, Themes, Action Items
Tagsno overlap	RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection	ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders	RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam	RetrospectiveTeamReflection

Add more methods