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 Start Stop Continue |  Architecture Request for Comments |  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. | 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 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 | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Start Stop Continue Board, Improvement Actions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | Emotion Board, Themes, Action Items |
Tagsno overlap | RetrospectiveImprovementTeamReflection | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | RetrospectiveTeamReflection |