methodatlas
Session Builder

Plan my session

Plan a concrete work block with agenda, roles, preparation, and a copyable result artifact.

Method session1-2 hWorkshop or asyncRadar Map

Session: Radar

The plan translates the method into a concrete facilitated work block. Your inputs flow directly into the session brief and work artifact.

Derived automatically

Method session with 2-10. The plan uses the existing method logic and the runsheet.

Runsheet
Participation logic
Team round, shared work and alignment

Use the session for shared understanding. Contributions are collected visibly, assumptions are aligned, and open differences remain traceable in the artifact.

Outcome logic
Finish artifact

The session works directly toward Radar Map. After the session, the artifact should be shareable, reviewable, or reusable.

  1. 1

    Phase 1: Clarify rubric and items

    10 min

    Read rubric aloud and check against examples from previous edition. Review item list, add missing items, remove irrelevant ones. Hint: If ring-specific thresholds do not clearly separate (for example Trial vs. Adopt), clarify them here. Otherwise contradictory placements emerge.

    FacilitatorRadar Map
  2. 2

    Phase 2: Item pitches

    20-40 min

    Per item, owner gives 2-3 min pitch: use case, observed benefits, risks, proposed ring. Then 1-2 clarification questions. Hint: Pitches are not lectures, not marketing. Owner should position the item critically, not sell it. Name risks explicitly, otherwise discussion turns into hype.

    FacilitatorCapability Scores
  3. 3

    Phase 3: Evaluation

    20-40 min

    Evaluate each item silently (cards or online tool), then discuss openly on spread. On consensus, place directly. On dissent: document arguments, approver decides. Hint: Avoid pressure for consensus. If 3 voices say Hold and 5 say Adopt, that is a hot spot, not a democracy topic. Approver decides, not majority.

    FacilitatorAction Areas
  4. 4

    Phase 4: Cross-check and consistency

    15-20 min

    Look at radar as a whole: do Adopt items fit together? Are there contradictions (for example two competing tools both Adopt)? Correct placements. Hint: Individually correct items can collectively create a contradictory picture. Cross-check is mandatory, not optional.

    FacilitatorRadar Map
  5. 5

    Phase 5: Documentation and publication

    10-15 min

    Write short rationale per item (2-4 sentences: why this ring, what would trigger ring change). Set next edition date. Clarify communication responsibility. Hint: Without rationale, the radar will not be understandable in 3 months. Per item at least one sentence: "would become Adopt if X is measurably reached".

    OwnerCapability Scores
  6. 6

    Publish artifact

    10 min

    Check the artifact for completeness, define location, set version or status, and name review recipients.

    OwnerRadar Map
Usable artifact

Session Brief

For invitations, boards, tickets, PR descriptions, or workshop notes.

session-brief.md

Session Brief: Radar

Goal

Artifact: Radar Map

Working Question

Which position on the radar most honestly reflects each item's current maturity and organization-wide recommendation?

Context

List of items to evaluate per quadrant (Techniques, Tools, Platforms, Languages & Frameworks for tech radar; adapted for other radars); one-pager per item with context, use case and known risks; previous edition as reference.

Setup

  • Format: Method session
  • Duration: 1-2 h
  • Mode: Workshop or async
  • Participants: One facilitator and one owner per item (pitch and defense); 2-10 evaluators with context knowledge; one scribe for rationales; for tech radar: architecture board or principal engineer as approver.
  • Owner: One facilitator and one owner per item (pitch and defense)
  • Participation mode: Team round, shared work and alignment
  • Outcome logic: Finish artifact

Participation Logic

Use the session for shared understanding. Contributions are collected visibly, assumptions are aligned, and open differences remain traceable in the artifact.

Outcome Logic

The session works directly toward Radar Map. After the session, the artifact should be shareable, reviewable, or reusable.

Input

Whiteboard, Miro or table with radar template (for example Adopt/Trial/Assess/Hold rings or n-axis spoke diagram); stickies or cards with item names; evaluation rubric; timer; source list per item (use cases, tests, vendor material).

Preparation

Put radar axes or rings on the wall. Make evaluation rubric visible (for example Adopt: recommended in production; Trial: in pilot; Assess: learn; Hold: do not start). One card per item with owner name. Timer for first phase.

Agenda

  1. Phase 1: Clarify rubric and items (10 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Read rubric aloud and check against examples from previous edition. Review item list, add missing items, remove irrelevant ones. Hint: If ring-specific thresholds do not clearly separate (for example Trial vs. Adopt), clarify them here. Otherwise contradictory placements emerge. Output: Radar Map

  2. Phase 2: Item pitches (20-40 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Per item, owner gives 2-3 min pitch: use case, observed benefits, risks, proposed ring. Then 1-2 clarification questions. Hint: Pitches are not lectures, not marketing. Owner should position the item critically, not sell it. Name risks explicitly, otherwise discussion turns into hype. Output: Capability Scores

  3. Phase 3: Evaluation (20-40 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Evaluate each item silently (cards or online tool), then discuss openly on spread. On consensus, place directly. On dissent: document arguments, approver decides. Hint: Avoid pressure for consensus. If 3 voices say Hold and 5 say Adopt, that is a hot spot, not a democracy topic. Approver decides, not majority. Output: Action Areas

  4. Phase 4: Cross-check and consistency (15-20 min) Owner: Facilitator Action: Look at radar as a whole: do Adopt items fit together? Are there contradictions (for example two competing tools both Adopt)? Correct placements. Hint: Individually correct items can collectively create a contradictory picture. Cross-check is mandatory, not optional. Output: Radar Map

  5. Phase 5: Documentation and publication (10-15 min) Owner: Owner Action: Write short rationale per item (2-4 sentences: why this ring, what would trigger ring change). Set next edition date. Clarify communication responsibility. Hint: Without rationale, the radar will not be understandable in 3 months. Per item at least one sentence: "would become Adopt if X is measurably reached". Output: Capability Scores

  6. Publish artifact (10 min) Owner: Owner Action: Check the artifact for completeness, define location, set version or status, and name review recipients. Output: Radar Map

Closeout

  • Update result artifact: Radar Map
  • Define location, version, and review recipients.
  • Define owner, next step, and review date.
Usable artifact

Work artifact

Pre-filled starting point based on the matching template.

work-artifact.md

Radar Map: Radar

Working Question

Which position on the radar most honestly reflects each item's current maturity and organization-wide recommendation?

Context

List of items to evaluate per quadrant (Techniques, Tools, Platforms, Languages & Frameworks for tech radar; adapted for other radars); one-pager per item with context, use case and known risks; previous edition as reference.

Participants

  • Owner: One facilitator and one owner per item (pitch and defense)
  • Participants: One facilitator and one owner per item (pitch and defense); 2-10 evaluators with context knowledge; one scribe for rationales; for tech radar: architecture board or principal engineer as approver.

Input

Whiteboard, Miro or table with radar template (for example Adopt/Trial/Assess/Hold rings or n-axis spoke diagram); stickies or cards with item names; evaluation rubric; timer; source list per item (use cases, tests, vendor material).

Template

Radar Working Template

Goal

Compare capabilities, technologies, or topics on radar rings and derive clear action areas.

Context

When and for what do we use this method?

Input

Which data, observations, decisions, or materials are available?

Working area

  • Dimensions:
  • Scoring scale:
  • Items or capabilities:
  • Evidence:
  • Action areas:

Output artifacts

  • Radar map:
  • Capability notes:
  • Action backlog:

Open questions

  • ...

Next step

Owner, date, and success signal.

Completion Check

  • Radar Map is complete enough for review:
  • Location:
  • Version / status:
  • Review by:
  • Next step:

Next Step

  • Review result
  • Mark open questions
  • Schedule review or decision
Template base

Radar Working Template

View templateCompact working template for Radar with dimensions, scores, evidence, and action areas.
spreadsheet

radar-working-template.md

Compact working template for Radar with dimensions, scores, evidence, and action areas.

Radar Working Template

Goal

Compare capabilities, technologies, or topics on radar rings and derive clear action areas.

Context

When and for what do we use this method?

Input

Which data, observations, decisions, or materials are available?

Working area

  • Dimensions:
  • Scoring scale:
  • Items or capabilities:
  • Evidence:
  • Action areas:

Output artifacts

  • Radar map:
  • Capability notes:
  • Action backlog:

Open questions

  • ...

Next step

Owner, date, and success signal.

Ready to use when
  • Working question, owner, and target artifact are visible.
  • The result fits Radar Map.
  • One dedicated entry per edition with date. Keep previous editions, explicitly mark movement per item (Adopt -> Hold, Trial -> Adopt). At least semiannual edition recommended, otherwise Hold items become zombies.
  • Open questions are noted as follow-ups.
  • The next review or decision point is scheduled.
ProfileRunsheet