AgilityHealth Radars

Origins

AgilityHealth was created by Sally Elatta in the early 2010s as a structured assessment framework for measuring team and program maturity across multiple dimensions.¹ The framework's distinctive contribution is its radar visualization: a spider chart showing scores across many dimensions simultaneously, with the team's own self-assessment producing the data.

The radar is a specific instantiation of a broader pattern — health checks like Spotify's Squad Health Check, ScrumAlliance's various assessments, and SAFe's maturity scoring all use similar mechanics. AgilityHealth is the most commercially-developed of these and the most often used at scale in large organizations.

The Radar Structure

A typical AgilityHealth team radar measures dimensions across four to seven categories:

• Foundations. Team formation, roles, working agreements.
• Clarity. Vision, goals, prioritization, backlog health.
• Performance. Predictability, throughput, value delivery.
• Leadership. Servant leadership, decision-making, empowerment.
• Culture. Trust, psychological safety, team dynamics.
• Technical. Engineering practices, automation, quality.

Each category contains several specific competencies, each scored on a maturity scale (typically 1–5). The team scores itself; the result is visualized as a polygon on a spider chart. Lopsided polygons reveal imbalance; growing polygons over time show maturation.

How an Assessment Runs

A typical session:

• The team gathers, either in person or virtually. Often a facilitator from outside the team helps run the assessment.
• Each competency is presented and discussed.
• The team scores together — sometimes by consensus, sometimes by independent rating then discussion.
• Scores are recorded; the radar visualization is generated.
• The team identifies one to three areas to focus on improving before the next assessment.
• The cadence is typically quarterly or semi-annual.

The session itself is often as valuable as the scores. The conversations during scoring surface assumptions, disagreements, and shared understanding that the radar number alone wouldn't capture.

What Radars Are Good At

• Multi-dimensional view. Captures the fact that team health has many facets, not one.
• Visual immediate-read. The radar shape tells you quickly which dimensions are strong and weak.
• Self-assessment ownership. Teams scoring themselves take more ownership than teams scored by outsiders.
• Comparison over time. A team's radar three quarters apart shows real progress (or its absence).
• Conversation triggers. The structured categories prompt discussions the team might not have organically.

How Radars Go Wrong

• Score inflation. Teams know that low scores look bad to leadership. Pressure produces optimistic self-assessment. The radar reflects performance for the audience, not actual maturity.
• Cross-team comparison. Like velocity, radar scores are not comparable across teams without contextual adjustment. Comparing them produces gaming and morale damage.
• Radar-as-target. When leadership sets "all teams should reach level 4 by year-end," the score becomes the goal and the underlying capability becomes secondary.
• Assessment fatigue. Quarterly sessions with 60 competencies become tedious. Response quality declines.
• No follow-through. The team identifies three improvement areas, never returns to them, and the next assessment looks identical. The radar becomes a ritual.
• Cookie-cutter applied to dissimilar teams. A maintenance team's "technical practices" look very different from a greenfield team's. The same radar can't fit both.

When Radars Earn Their Keep

• Multi-team scaled organizations where leadership needs a structured way to see team-level health.
• Teams new to agile that benefit from explicit categories of capability to develop.
• Organizations with substantial coaching investment that can act on radar findings.

When To Skip Them

• Small organizations where direct observation is faster and more honest.
• Mature teams that have internalized the underlying capabilities and find the formal scoring tedious.
• Cultures with strong leadership pressure that would corrupt self-assessment.

The Honest Stance

Radars are a useful tool in scaled organizations and a liability in cultures that can't keep them honest. The key discipline is treating the radar as a self-assessment for the team's own improvement, not as a performance metric leadership uses to compare teams. The moment that contract is broken, the data corrupts and the framework becomes ceremony.

Coaching Tips

Score independently, then discuss.

Each team member rates first; differences reveal where shared understanding hasn't formed.

Never share scores up the chain.

Leadership sees aggregate trends; never team-level numbers. Without that firewall, self-assessment dies.

Pick three focus areas, not ten.

The radar shows everything. The action plan should be narrow. More focus areas means less improvement.

Track follow-through.

Did the team actually work on the focus areas? If not, the assessment is theatre. Build in accountability.

Watch for inflation.

If every team scores themselves at 4+ across the board, the radar has been corrupted. Address the underlying culture, not the scores.

Tailor the categories.

A platform team's radar looks different from a feature team's. Generic templates produce generic insights.

Summary

AgilityHealth radars and similar multi-dimensional health frameworks fill a real gap in agile measurement: how to look at team capability as a whole rather than through any single number. They work when the team owns the self-assessment, treats it as an instrument for their own growth, and acts on what it reveals. They fail when leadership uses them for comparison or targeting, which is unfortunately the most common pattern. The framework's value is entirely dependent on the culture surrounding it.

Back to Agile Metrics