BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article
Front. Psychol.
Sec. Organizational Psychology
Strategy Jams: Using design thinking to charter teams with compelling purpose and sound structure
Bethany Laursen
Elizabeth LaPensee
Maureen Brudzinski
Blair Richards
Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, Ann Arbor, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract
It is unclear how science facilitators can balance the amount of structure, content, and freedom they give to teams in chartering workshops. We propose that design thinking principles and activities can fill this need in team science. We piloted a team chartering workshop based on design thinking (a "Strategy Jam") with five hybrid research/research support teams. We tracked chartering outcomes and what led to them using a mixed methods, explanatory, longitudinal study design. Data were collected using the Team Diagnostic Survey and interviews with team leaders. Immediately after the Strategy Jam, teams' scores for their compelling purpose increased by an average of 13%. For three of the four teams measured quantitatively, their sound structure scores increased by an average of 8% while one team's score decreased by 11%. Qualitative analysis of interviews with all five teams revealed that design thinking factors were influential, along with contextual factors and generic factors common to any participatory workshop. An unknown follow up mechanism likely contributed to further gains and losses in chartering outcomes over time. In this pilot study, design thinking was an effective and efficient way to design a participatory chartering workshop. It was effective because it helped charter team purpose and structure. It was efficient because a design thinking approach fulfilled five science facilitation functions at once: (1) structure the participation process, (2) structure the workshop process, (3) facilitate generic workshop factors (e.g., aligned choosing), (4) gain traction on chartering topics for ambiguous challenges, and (5) respond to context.
Summary
Keywords
design thinking, mixed methods, Role of context, science facilitation, Team charter, team chartering workshop, team science, TeamDiagnostic Survey
Received
14 November 2025
Accepted
17 February 2026
Copyright
© 2026 Laursen, LaPensee, Brudzinski and Richards. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Bethany Laursen
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.