ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Strategy Jams: using design thinking to charter teams with compelling purpose and sound structure.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 along with team commitment, learning, and cohesion. 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.