methodatlas

Decision Making Decision method

Radar

Compares several dimensions of one shared object on an evidence-backed scale.

A radar chart displays several categories as axes on a common scale. As a working method it makes current and desired profiles, divergent assessments and development areas visible. Meaning comes from operationalized axes and evidence, not polygon area.

Core question
Where do we stand on each dimension with evidence, what profile do we need and what change will we test next?
Plan the workMethod guide
Start comparison
Give feedbackIs this method useful to you?
Participants
2-10 people
Time
Duration

Example and worksheet use the same method-specific structure.

Paper radar with five axes, two current and target profiles, and evidence cards beside each dimension.

  1. Scale

    Operationalize dimensions and scale

    Every axis measures the same object through observable anchors.

  2. Rate

    Rate every dimension with evidence

    Values are documented as reasoned assessments, not decorative area.

  3. Patterns

    Interpret shape and gaps

    The radar reveals tensions and priorities without invalidly aggregating different axes.

  4. Action

    Agree improvements and review

    A few relevant axes receive concrete experiments and a new measurement point.

Keep dimensions and scale stable across comparison periods; add new values with date, evidence and context change.

A good fit when

Useful for recurring reflection on a team, product or capability across several dimensions. Unsuitable when axes lack a common scale or an exact total ranking is expected.

Ideal for

  • Capability reviews
  • Technology radar
  • Portfolio conversations

Not good for

  • Exact measurement without a scoring model
  • Single decisions without a comparison set

Outputs

  • Evidence-backed profile

    Current and target per dimension with scale anchors, evidence and uncertainty.

  • Improvement cycle

    Focused experiments with signal, owner and next radar date.

Team radar with current and target

Fictional team radar

Fictional 1–5 assessment of a product team. Values are read with evidence per axis; polygon area is not a total score.

Team radar with current and target
DimensionCurrent 1–5Target 1–5Fictional evidence
DiscoveryHow confidently do we understand problem and users?24Three interviews, no usage data yet.
DeliveryHow reliably do we release small changes?44Weekly releases, stable pipeline.
QualityHow visible and controlled are quality risks?24Regressions are found late by Support.
LearningHow regularly do we review impact and assumptions?13No recurring outcome reviews.
AlignmentHow clear are aim, priorities and decision rights?34Quarterly aim is clear; trade-off rule is missing.

  1. 1. Current 1–5

    Discovery
    2
    Delivery
    4
    Quality
    2
    Learning
    1
    Alignment
    3

  2. 2. Target 1–5

    Discovery
    4
    Delivery
    4
    Quality
    4
    Learning
    3
    Alignment
    4

  3. 3. Fictional evidence

    Discovery
    Three interviews, no usage data yet.
    Delivery
    Weekly releases, stable pipeline.
    Quality
    Regressions are found late by Support.
    Learning
    No recurring outcome reviews.
    Alignment
    Quarterly aim is clear; trade-off rule is missing.

Scale: 1 = ad hoc, 3 = repeatable, 5 = measured and improved.

Minnesota Department of Health · Radar chart

First step

Clarify decision question, assessment object, date and five to eight relevant dimensions.

Open the method guide

Where to go next?

Paper scorecard with four perspectives, connected objective cards and columns for measures, targets and initiatives.
Business Strategy
Balanced Scorecard

Embeds a prioritized dimension into strategic steering.

Gap Analysis method illustration showing its working structure
Business Strategy
GAP Analysis

Compares a low-scoring dimension against a concrete target value.

Deep dive

Purpose

When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do.

How it works

Several axes are brought onto the same scale so strengths, weaknesses, and asymmetries become visible. The format fits when relative differences matter more than exact individual values. This makes a profile quick to read and discuss.

In detail

A Radar makes change visible across categories and maturity levels when a group has to watch many topics at once. Clear criteria per ring, justified movements, and regular upkeep keep the representation resilient. As a poster surface it stays pretty; as a working tool it directs attention and structures adoption, observation, or rejection.

Facilitation

Define the search question, the time horizon, and the kind of signal that should be captured on the radar at all. The format becomes useful when weak signals are condensed without faking early certainty. Close with a clear classification into observe, assess, or adopt, and record when a topic gets reassessed.

The method guide walks execution through 4 phases, timing, 4 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.

Open method guide

Your perspective

Does this method help with your work?

Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.

Sources and topics

Topics
AssessmentPortfolioCapability
Sources
Minnesota Department of Health · Radar Chartweb.health.state.mn.usPublic-sector guidance on defining important performance categories and full performance for each category.SAP Help · Radar chartshelp.sap.comTechnical reference for a common scale and category axes radiating from one origin.
Artifact templates
Radar: WorksheetPrepare the whole flow or one selected phase with real inputs.
markdown

radar-working-template.md

Prepare the whole flow or one selected phase with real inputs.

Radar: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Set up and repeat the radar Time: 60–120 minutes; repeat at an agreed cadence

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

  • Materials: Radar template, rubric with scale anchors, evidence cards, separate markers for current and target.
  • Roles: Facilitator, participants from different roles, scribe and owner of the selected improvement.
  • Advance information: Gather available data, examples and earlier profiles. Check dimensions for overlap and decision relevance.
  • Overall time needed: 60–120 minutes; repeat at an agreed cadence
  • Setup: Create five to eight axes on the same scale. Distinguish current, target, evidence and uncertainty by color.

Prepare for the work steps

Scale: Operationalize dimensions and scale

  • Decision question and assessment object
  • Relevant dimensions and available evidence

Rate: Rate every dimension with evidence

  • Radar rubric
  • Current data, artifacts and observations

Patterns: Interpret shape and gaps

  • Evidence-backed ratings
  • Target profile or comparison date

Action: Agree improvements and review

  • Prioritized tensions
  • Authority and responsible people

Team radar with current and target

DimensionCurrent rating 1–5Target rating 1–5Evidence and uncertainty
Discovery
Delivery
Quality
Learning
Alignment
  • Discovery: How confidently do we understand problem and users?
  • Delivery: How reliably do we release small changes?
  • Quality: How visible and controlled are quality risks?
  • Learning: How regularly do we review impact and assumptions?
  • Alignment: How clear are aim, priorities and decision rights?

Define scale anchors before rating and record at least one piece of evidence per value.

Minnesota Department of Health · Radar chart

Scale: Operationalize dimensions and scale

Expected artifact: Radar rubric

Object · date · dimensions · scale anchors

Entry:

...

  • Could two people rate the same evidence similarly using the anchors?

Rate: Rate every dimension with evidence

Expected artifact: Evidence-backed ratings

Current value · evidence · uncertainty

Entry:

...

  • Does each value have current evidence or a clear uncertainty label?

Patterns: Interpret shape and gaps

Expected artifact: Prioritized tensions

Gap · dependency · uncertainty

Entry:

...

  • Does each interpretation refer to concrete axes and evidence rather than polygon area?

Action: Agree improvements and review

Expected artifact: Improvement plan

Axis · experiment · signal · owner · review

Entry:

...

  • Can the next radar reuse the same scale and test the expected change?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/radar/run-sheet

Alternatives and neighbors

Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.

All methods
Paper illustration of a decision table with criteria rows, weighted ratings, and a narrowly leading alternative.
Decision Making
Decision Matrix

Instead of Radar, when you're not classifying maturity levels but selecting between options using weighting and reasoning.

Paper illustration for Argument Mapping
Decision Making
Argument Mapping

Clarifies options, criteria, and risks by framing the central question, recording the main claim, and marking weak spots.

Decision Tree method illustration showing its working structure
Decision Making
Decision Tree

Draws decisions as branching paths so options, conditions, and consequences become clearer in comparison.

Paper illustration for Option Framing.
Decision Making
Option Framing

Shapes raw options into comparable descriptions with assumptions and consequences for a real shortlist.

Paper illustration for RAPID
Decision Making
RAPID

Arranges decision responsibility across five roles and makes recommendation, input, and follow-up unambiguous.

Paper illustration for Trade-off Analysis.
Decision Making
Trade-off Analysis

Compares options against criteria and accepted downsides so the decision stays transparently justifiable.

Constraints and origin
MediumWorkshop + async1-2 h

Profile

Method form
Decision method
Participants
2-10
Time
1-2 h
Maturity
Established
Origin
Thoughtworks
Paper scorecard with four perspectives, connected objective cards and columns for measures, targets and initiatives.
Next up: Balanced Scorecard