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 Working Agreements |  Operations Process Mapping |  Agile Sailboat Retrospective |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | With a confusing workflow that has many handoffs, the method makes the actual process visible. It shows where work is passed on, delayed, or duplicated, so improvement targets the right spots. | 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-3 h | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-10 | 4-12 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Process Map, Handoff List, Improvement Backlog | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | ProcessOperationsImprovement | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam |