As the term RADAR implies, this section revolves around addressing a specific approach to detection, collection, and analysis. We focus here on the topics that are useful or necessary for preparing and implementing Enterneering®. In this context, it is important to understand the radar’s target, the nature of the investigation or monitoring it entails, and the methods for its application and evaluation.
Since Enterneering® is all about the three pillars of culture, people, and organisation, our radars are consequently also focused on these. When presenting the tools that we have defined, we are not concerned that these tools or instruments are the only way to effectively implement Enterneering®. There are different ways to reach the goal. Our tools are intended solely for illustration, brainstorming, and training purposes. They do not claim to be complete or academically correct. Before each application in real practice, an individual review and consideration must always take place.
Step by Step
In Enterneering® we use the term radar to describe a process model that is based on successive steps. This step-by-step approach is intended to help capture and reduce complexity. The aim is to filter out the core of the probably most important elements from a multitude of influencing factors and ultimately transfer them into a ranking system. This ranking should serve as a basis for deriving measures and making decisions. The most important or influential factors and findings captured and identified during these steps are also made transparent and stored and are thus available as a backlog or as a source for other related tools.
In principle, such step-by-step process models primarily serve as a training tool for managing complexity and quantifying the basis for decisions. This means that decisions are guided by these models away from subjective or emotional foundations, relying instead on factual elements. Abbreviating such step-by-step models is just as inadvisable as making up the underlying evaluation criteria and evaluation yardsticks.
In our example models, the assessment criteria and benchmarks are very deliberately predetermined and set in a manner that cannot be altered. Everyone can and should create a model that aligns with his or her specific situation. The subjectivity and emotional influence involved in choosing one's assessment criteria and standards should not be underestimated. If you are serious about the whole issue and want to make objective, fact-based deductions, you should not compile your individual models and tools in isolation. Instead, it’s beneficial to do so with as much flexibility as possible, minimising constraints and biases.
Our radar set currently consists of
| ➟ | Tool 1: Situation & Environment Analysis, |
| ➟ | Tool 2: Need for Action Assessment, |
| ➟ | Tool 3: Maturity of Executives, |
| ➟ | Tool 4: Maturity of Organisation. |
Start here directly with the first section Analysis and Evaluation and navigate directly to the second section upon the end of the first one. ➽
Related content:
- Implementation & Training/Radar/The RADAR Introduction ❭ ❭ ❭
- Implementation & Training/Radar/Situation & Environment Analysis ❭ ❭ ❭
- Implementation & Training/Radar/Need for Action Assessment ❭ ❭ ❭
- Implementation & Training/Radar/Maturity of Executives ❭ ❭ ❭
- Implementation & Training/Radar/Maturity of Organisation ❭ ❭ ❭
- Implementation & Training/Practical Implementation/Introduction and Preparation ❭ ❭ ❭
- Implementation & Training/Workout/Sample title 1 ❭ ❭ ❭