Complete firstMandate
The sponsor clarifies purpose, decision space, and hard boundaries. Team members add role, experience, capacity, and important dependencies.
Describe the mandate through value and impact.
Method guideFacilitation
Team Charter
A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.
ComplexityMedium
Time2-4 h
Participants3-12
FormatWorkshop
MaturityCanonical
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
Complete firstTeamwork
Mark the draft as changeable. Clarify mandate and boundaries before roles and collaboration; collect unresolved sponsor questions separately.
Keep out-of-scope work and dependencies visible.
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Charter template, mandate or project brief, known goals and interfaces, role overview, and calendar for the review.
People / roles
Whole team · sponsor for mandate and boundaries · facilitator · documentation owner
Pre-read
The sponsor clarifies purpose, decision space, and hard boundaries. Team members add role, experience, capacity, and important dependencies.
Time needed
75–120 minutes for the first version; review after 4–6 weeks and after material team changes.
Setup
Mark the draft as changeable. Clarify mandate and boundaries before roles and collaboration; collect unresolved sponsor questions separately.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
What shared agreement enables this team to fulfil its mandate with clear boundaries and responsibilities?
04
Flow
Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall
A Team Charter connects purpose, customers, responsibilities, communication paths, and decision rules. It provides a shared reference for formation, handover, and conflict clarification.
Team charter
Fictional example
Fictional short version for a team operating a digital booking service.
Purpose and customers
Why does the team exist, whom does it help, and what value should result?
We help small workshops book maintenance appointments reliably without phone queues.
Outcomes and boundaries
Which outcomes does the team own, and what is explicitly outside?
Owns booking flow and confirmation. Outside: workshop ERP and pricing.
Roles and decisions
Who decides, executes, or contributes to key outcomes?
Product decides priorities; Tech decides implementation; Support is consulted on confirmation-flow changes.
Collaboration
Which channels, rhythms, and conflict paths apply?
Blockers appear on the board daily; domain decisions go into the decision log; unresolved goal conflicts go to Product and sponsor within two working days.
Open points and review
What remains open, who resolves it, and when is the charter reviewed?
Open: access to ERP test data, owner Samira by 12 Oct; charter review on 30 Oct.
The example shows a useful level of detail, not a universal team design.
- 1
Mandate
Clarify mandate
Goal
Shared mandate: Record purpose, expected value, and customers together.
Inputs for this step
- The sponsor clarifies purpose, decision space, and hard boundaries. Team members add role, experience, capacity, and important dependencies.
Actions
- Record purpose, expected value, and customers together.
Output
Shared mandate
Shared mandate
Quality check
Can team and sponsor state the same purpose, served people, and expected value?
Pitfall
The mandate lists activities such as building a platform but omits customer value and success signals. Return to “Clarify mandate” and repeat this method step: Record purpose, expected value, and customers together.
Timing: 15–20 minutes
- 2
Boundaries
Set scope
Goal
Explicit scope: Name owned outcomes, dependencies, and explicitly excluded work.
Inputs for this step
- Shared mandate
Actions
- Name owned outcomes, dependencies, and explicitly excluded work.
Output
Explicit scope
Explicit scope
Quality check
Are owned outcomes, out-of-scope work, and external dependencies explicit?
Pitfall
Every adjacent task is included in scope as a precaution. Return to “Set scope” and repeat this method step: Name owned outcomes, dependencies, and explicitly excluded work.
Timing: 15–25 minutes
- 3
Roles
Assign responsibility
Goal
Role and decision map: Record decision, execution, and advice roles for concrete outcomes.
Inputs for this step
- Explicit scope
Actions
- Record decision, execution, and advice roles for concrete outcomes.
Output
Role and decision map
Role and decision map
Quality check
For key outcomes, is it clear who decides, executes, and contributes?
Pitfall
Roles are only job titles; responsibility for decisions and outcomes remains open. Return to “Assign responsibility” and repeat this method step: Record decision, execution, and advice roles for concrete outcomes.
Timing: 20–30 minutes
- 4
Ways of working
Agree collaboration
Goal
Agreed collaboration: Document communication, meetings, conflict path, and relevant agreements.
Inputs for this step
- Role and decision map
Actions
- Document communication, meetings, conflict path, and relevant agreements.
Output
Agreed collaboration
Agreed collaboration
Quality check
Are communication and conflict rules written as observable behaviour?
Pitfall
The charter says communicate openly but omits channels, response paths, and a conflict rule. Return to “Agree collaboration” and repeat this method step: Document communication, meetings, conflict path, and relevant agreements.
Timing: 20–30 minutes
- 5
Review
Maintain charter
Goal
Published charter with review: Set assumptions, open points, and the next joint review.
Inputs for this step
- Agreed collaboration
Actions
- Set assumptions, open points, and the next joint review.
Output
Published charter with review
Published charter with review
Quality check
Are unresolved mandate questions, owners, and the next review visible?
Pitfall
The file is stored without sharing it with sponsor and interfaces or scheduling a review. Return to “Maintain charter” and repeat this method step: Set assumptions, open points, and the next joint review.
Timing: 10–15 minutes
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Sketch: what the artifact looks like
Form
Versioned team charter with purpose, customers, success signals, scope, roles, decision paths, working rules, open points, and review date.
Versioning / ownership
Version the published charter with review with date, owner, source state, and review date. Preserve earlier observations and append changes with their reason.
Tool alternatives
- Shared charter document for purpose, scope, roles, and ways of working
- Decision log for mandate and role decisions
- Calendar event for sponsor alignment and charter review
team-charter-markdown.md
Plan the question, inputs, complete run, and review with clear ownership.
Team Charter: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Complete run Time: 75–120 minutes for the first version; review after 4–6 weeks and after material team changes.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: Charter template, mandate or project brief, known goals and interfaces, role overview, and calendar for the review.
- Roles: Whole team · sponsor for mandate and boundaries · facilitator · documentation owner
- Advance information: The sponsor clarifies purpose, decision space, and hard boundaries. Team members add role, experience, capacity, and important dependencies.
- Overall time needed: 75–120 minutes for the first version; review after 4–6 weeks and after material team changes.
- Setup: Mark the draft as changeable. Clarify mandate and boundaries before roles and collaboration; collect unresolved sponsor questions separately.
Prepare for the work steps
Mandate: Clarify mandate
- The sponsor clarifies purpose, decision space, and hard boundaries. Team members add role, experience, capacity, and important dependencies.
Boundaries: Set scope
- Shared mandate
Roles: Assign responsibility
- Explicit scope
Ways of working: Agree collaboration
- Role and decision map
Review: Maintain charter
- Agreed collaboration
Team charter
Purpose and customers
Why does the team exist, whom does it help, and what value should result?
...
Outcomes and boundaries
Which outcomes does the team own, and what is explicitly outside?
...
Roles and decisions
Who decides, executes, or contributes to key outcomes?
...
Collaboration
Which channels, rhythms, and conflict paths apply?
...
Open points and review
What remains open, who resolves it, and when is the charter reviewed?
...
Clarify mandate and hard boundaries with the sponsor; write team agreements together.
Atlassian Team Charter · original teaching example
Mandate: Clarify mandate
Expected artifact: Shared mandate
Shared mandate
Entry:
...
- Can team and sponsor state the same purpose, served people, and expected value?
Boundaries: Set scope
Expected artifact: Explicit scope
Explicit scope
Entry:
...
- Are owned outcomes, out-of-scope work, and external dependencies explicit?
Roles: Assign responsibility
Expected artifact: Role and decision map
Role and decision map
Entry:
...
- For key outcomes, is it clear who decides, executes, and contributes?
Ways of working: Agree collaboration
Expected artifact: Agreed collaboration
Agreed collaboration
Entry:
...
- Are communication and conflict rules written as observable behaviour?
Review: Maintain charter
Expected artifact: Published charter with review
Published charter with review
Entry:
...
- Are unresolved mandate questions, owners, and the next review visible?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/team-charter/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.
team-charter-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional teaching example: Team charter
Purpose and customers
We help small workshops book maintenance appointments reliably without phone queues.
Outcomes and boundaries
Owns booking flow and confirmation. Outside: workshop ERP and pricing.
Roles and decisions
Product decides priorities; Tech decides implementation; Support is consulted on confirmation-flow changes.
Collaboration
Blockers appear on the board daily; domain decisions go into the decision log; unresolved goal conflicts go to Product and sponsor within two working days.
Open points and review
Open: access to ERP test data, owner Samira by 12 Oct; charter review on 30 Oct.
The example shows a useful level of detail, not a universal team design.
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow
- Clarify mandateThe mandate lists activities such as building a platform but omits customer value and success signals.View in phase
- Set scopeEvery adjacent task is included in scope as a precaution.View in phase
- Assign responsibilityRoles are only job titles; responsibility for decisions and outcomes remains open.View in phase
- Agree collaborationThe charter says communicate openly but omits channels, response paths, and a conflict rule.View in phase
- Maintain charterThe file is stored without sharing it with sponsor and interfaces or scheduling a review.View in phase
Trap
Clarify mandate
Symptom
The mandate lists activities such as building a platform but omits customer value and success signals.
What to do
Return to “Clarify mandate” and repeat this method step: Record purpose, expected value, and customers together.
Trap
Set scope
Symptom
Every adjacent task is included in scope as a precaution.
What to do
Return to “Set scope” and repeat this method step: Name owned outcomes, dependencies, and explicitly excluded work.
Trap
Assign responsibility
Symptom
Roles are only job titles; responsibility for decisions and outcomes remains open.
What to do
Return to “Assign responsibility” and repeat this method step: Record decision, execution, and advice roles for concrete outcomes.
Trap
Agree collaboration
Symptom
The charter says communicate openly but omits channels, response paths, and a conflict rule.
What to do
Return to “Agree collaboration” and repeat this method step: Document communication, meetings, conflict path, and relevant agreements.
Trap
Maintain charter
Symptom
The file is stored without sharing it with sponsor and interfaces or scheduling a review.
What to do
Return to “Maintain charter” and repeat this method step: Set assumptions, open points, and the next joint review.
08
Stop criteria
When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach
Pause or return to the previous step when this check is not satisfied: Can team and sponsor state the same purpose, served people, and expected value?
Pause or return to the previous step when this check is not satisfied: Are owned outcomes, out-of-scope work, and external dependencies explicit?
Pause or return to the previous step when this check is not satisfied: For key outcomes, is it clear who decides, executes, and contributes?
Pause or return to the previous step when this check is not satisfied: Are communication and conflict rules written as observable behaviour?
Pause or return to the previous step when this check is not satisfied: Are unresolved mandate questions, owners, and the next review visible?
Finished the method guide?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.