Complete firstShared object
All axes refer to the same team, product or system on the same date.
Mixed objects create a meaningless profile.
Method guideDecision Making
Radar
A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.
ComplexityMedium
Time1-2 h
Participants2-10
FormatWorkshop + async
MaturityEstablished
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
Complete firstObservable scale
Low, middle and high values have concrete anchors.
Without anchors, numbers merely reflect different standards.
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Radar template, rubric with scale anchors, evidence cards, separate markers for current and target.
People / roles
Facilitator, participants from different roles, scribe and owner of the selected improvement.
Pre-read
Gather available data, examples and earlier profiles. Check dimensions for overlap and decision relevance.
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.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
Where do we stand on each dimension with evidence, what profile do we need and what change will we test next?
04
Flow
Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall
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.
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.
| Dimension | Current 1–5 | Target 1–5 | Fictional evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| DiscoveryHow confidently do we understand problem and users? | 2 | 4 | Three interviews, no usage data yet. |
| DeliveryHow reliably do we release small changes? | 4 | 4 | Weekly releases, stable pipeline. |
| QualityHow visible and controlled are quality risks? | 2 | 4 | Regressions are found late by Support. |
| LearningHow regularly do we review impact and assumptions? | 1 | 3 | No recurring outcome reviews. |
| AlignmentHow clear are aim, priorities and decision rights? | 3 | 4 | Quarterly aim is clear; trade-off rule is missing. |
1. Current 1–5
- Discovery
- 2
- Delivery
- 4
- Quality
- 2
- Learning
- 1
- Alignment
- 3
2. Target 1–5
- Discovery
- 4
- Delivery
- 4
- Quality
- 4
- Learning
- 3
- Alignment
- 4
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.
- 1
Scale
Operationalize dimensions and scale
Goal
Every axis measures the same object through observable anchors.
Inputs for this step
- Decision question and assessment object
- Relevant dimensions and available evidence
Actions
- Define the assessment object, date and five to eight reasonably independent dimensions.
- Create one common scale with observable anchors, for example 1 = ad hoc, 3 = repeatable, 5 = measured and improved.
Output
Radar rubric
Object · date · dimensions · scale anchors
Quality check
Could two people rate the same evidence similarly using the anchors?
Pitfall
Axes use abstract value words without observable scale anchors. Write one checkable example for low, middle and high levels.
Timing: 10–20 minutes
- 2
Rate
Rate every dimension with evidence
Goal
Values are documented as reasoned assessments, not decorative area.
Inputs for this step
- Radar rubric
- Current data, artifacts and observations
Actions
- Rate each dimension individually or by role first and record one concrete piece of evidence.
- Keep divergent values visible; mark uncertainty and missing data instead of false precision.
Output
Evidence-backed ratings
Current value · evidence · uncertainty
Quality check
Does each value have current evidence or a clear uncertainty label?
Pitfall
The group quickly agrees numbers without naming their observed basis. Rate privately, then discuss the largest differences through evidence first.
Timing: 15–30 minutes
- 3
Patterns
Interpret shape and gaps
Goal
The radar reveals tensions and priorities without invalidly aggregating different axes.
Inputs for this step
- Evidence-backed ratings
- Target profile or comparison date
Actions
- Compare current profile with target or earlier profile and describe major gaps and dependencies.
- Do not treat area or average as an objective total score; interpret dimensions separately.
Output
Prioritized tensions
Gap · dependency · uncertainty
Quality check
Does each interpretation refer to concrete axes and evidence rather than polygon area?
Pitfall
A larger polygon is treated wholesale as better or as a precise maturity level. Read axes separately, state scale limits and compare only compatible profiles.
Timing: 10–20 minutes
- 4
Action
Agree improvements and review
Goal
A few relevant axes receive concrete experiments and a new measurement point.
Inputs for this step
- Prioritized tensions
- Authority and responsible people
Actions
- Choose one or two axes and define one observable improvement with an owner for each.
- Agree expected signal, required data and next radar date; keep the scale unchanged.
Output
Improvement plan
Axis · experiment · signal · owner · review
Quality check
Can the next radar reuse the same scale and test the expected change?
Pitfall
The group tries to raise every low axis to the maximum at once. Prioritize by decision relevance and choose a few targeted experiments per cycle.
Timing: 10–15 minutes
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Sketch: what the artifact looks like
Form
Dated radar profile with rubric, evidence, rating differences, target profile and focused improvement experiments.
Versioning / ownership
Version dimensions, scale anchors and object. Document model changes separately from value changes.
Tool alternatives
- Printed radar with evidence cards
- Digital whiteboard
- Table for rubric and rating history
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
| Dimension | Current rating 1–5 | Target rating 1–5 | Evidence 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
06
Example output
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.
radar-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional team radar
Scale: 1 = ad hoc, 3 = repeatable, 5 = measured and improved.
| Dimension | Current | Target | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery | 2 | 4 | Three interviews, no usage data |
| Delivery | 4 | 4 | Weekly releases |
| Quality | 2 | 4 | Regressions found late by Support |
| Learning | 1 | 3 | No outcome reviews |
Experiment: Biweekly outcome review for eight weeks. Owner: Mira. Signal: decisions and assumptions are updated in every review.
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow
- Operationalize dimensions and scaleAxes use abstract value words without observable scale anchors.View in phase
- Rate every dimension with evidenceThe group quickly agrees numbers without naming their observed basis.View in phase
- Interpret shape and gapsA larger polygon is treated wholesale as better or as a precise maturity level.View in phase
- Agree improvements and reviewThe group tries to raise every low axis to the maximum at once.View in phase
Trap
Operationalize dimensions and scale
Symptom
Axes use abstract value words without observable scale anchors.
What to do
Write one checkable example for low, middle and high levels.
Trap
Rate every dimension with evidence
Symptom
The group quickly agrees numbers without naming their observed basis.
What to do
Rate privately, then discuss the largest differences through evidence first.
Trap
Interpret shape and gaps
Symptom
A larger polygon is treated wholesale as better or as a precise maturity level.
What to do
Read axes separately, state scale limits and compare only compatible profiles.
Trap
Agree improvements and review
Symptom
The group tries to raise every low axis to the maximum at once.
What to do
Prioritize by decision relevance and choose a few targeted experiments per cycle.
08
Stop criteria
When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach
Dimensions refer to different objects or dates.
The scale has no observable anchors.
Important values have neither evidence nor uncertainty label.
The group wants to use polygon area or average as an objective total score.
A low rating becomes judgement of people rather than system learning.
Finished the method guide?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.