Move from unspoken expectations to clear roles, agreements, and decision pathways.
A Team Charter with work agreements, role clarity, and next review date.
You can decide which working style, roles, and decision levels the team uses consistently.
Test working agreements in daily team life and schedule the review date for adjustments.
What shared agreement enables this team to fulfil its mandate with clear boundaries and responsibilities?
The Team Charter clarifies shared purpose, goals, roles, and work mode as a common foundation.
Based on this foundation, unspoken expectations become visible and negotiable.
Which expectations, commitments, and observable signals must be clarified at this interface?
Expectation Mapping makes implicit assumptions about collaboration explicit before they turn into friction.
Expectations are then translated into concrete work agreements.
Which observable agreements help this team collaborate reliably and respectfully?
Working agreements make desired behavior observable and checkable in day-to-day work.
For decision situations, the team still needs clear decision delegation levels.
Which delegation level fits this decision given current capability, risk, and boundaries?
Delegation Poker clarifies who decides what and what level of participation is expected.
Delegation levels are then integrated into the Team Charter and regular team reflection.
Artifacts stay collapsed until you actually need them.
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](https://www.atlassian.com/work-management/project-collaboration/team-charter)
## 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
Plan the initial agreement, use, and review with clear ownership.
# Working Agreements: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 10 minutes of preparation and about 60 minutes for the first agreement; then ongoing use and regular reviews.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Shared document or board, individual work preferences, current friction examples, channel overview, and calendar.
- **Roles:** Whole team · facilitator · team lead as participant, not sole author · rotating agreement owner
- **Advance information:** Everyone notes working hours, focus time, feedback preferences, and current friction. The lead drafts at most communication and escalation questions, not finished rules.
- **Overall time needed:** 10 minutes of preparation and about 60 minutes for the first agreement; then ongoing use and regular reviews.
- **Setup:** Make existing rules visible, collect personal preferences silently first, and adopt only agreements the team can concretely try.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Context: Bound friction
- Everyone notes working hours, focus time, feedback preferences, and current friction. The lead drafts at most communication and escalation questions, not finished rules.
#### Perspectives: Gather needs
- Bounded friction situations
#### Rules: Write observable norms
- Visible work preferences
#### Escalation: Clarify interfaces
- Observable team rules
#### Maintenance: Plan review
- Communication and escalation path
## Working agreements
### Hours and focus
When are we available, when do we protect focus, and which exceptions apply?
...
### Communication channels
Which channel serves which purpose and what response is expected?
...
### Feedback and decisions
How do we give feedback and where are decisions recorded?
...
### Blockers and escalation
When and to whom do we escalate?
...
### Review
When and through what process do rules change?
...
Collect personal preferences, then agree on a few observable rules for a trial period.
[Atlassian Working Agreements · original teaching example](https://www.atlassian.com/team-playbook/plays/working-agreements)
## Context: Bound friction
Expected artifact: Bounded friction situations
Bounded friction situations
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are friction points described as concrete situations without judging people?
## Perspectives: Gather needs
Expected artifact: Visible work preferences
Visible work preferences
Entry:
...
- [ ] Could everyone contribute work conditions and feedback preferences independently?
## Rules: Write observable norms
Expected artifact: Observable team rules
Observable team rules
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does each rule name a trigger and observable behaviour?
## Escalation: Clarify interfaces
Expected artifact: Communication and escalation path
Communication and escalation path
Entry:
...
- [ ] For urgent and non-urgent cases, are channel and escalation path clear?
## Maintenance: Plan review
Expected artifact: Reviewable agreement
Reviewable agreement
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can the team change rules that no longer work, and is the next review scheduled?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/working-agreements/run-sheet