Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Facilitate Team Charter Creation and Get Team Sign-Off
2–4 weeks for facilitation, iteration, and sign-off
A team charter is a lightweight social contract that answers four questions the team will otherwise argue about implicitly: what are we here to do, how do we make decisions, what behaviour do we expect of each other, and how do we know if we're working well. The charter is only useful if the team owns it — which means it must be created with the team, not written by the manager and distributed. This milestone covers the facilitation process and the documented agreement.
Proof required
Submit: (1) the final team charter document (300 words minimum), covering at minimum: team purpose, decision-making process, norms for communication and conflict, and how the charter will be reviewed; (2) evidence that the charter was created through a team process — meeting notes, async comment threads, or a workshop summary showing that all team members had a meaningful opportunity to contribute; (3) a sign-off record showing all team members acknowledged the charter — this can be a message thread, a shared-doc acknowledgement, or a meeting attendance record with a follow-up message confirming agreement.
What gets checked
- Charter addresses all four dimensions: purpose, decision process, behavioural norms, and review cadence — a charter that only covers ground rules for meetings is not a team operating system
- Charter was created with genuine team input — a document the manager drafted and sent for 'feedback' with no substantive changes is not a co-created charter; the facilitation evidence must show specific contributions from team members that shaped the final document
- Sign-off is from actual team members, not implicit — 'nobody objected' is not the same as 'the team agreed'; a positive acknowledgement from each team member is required
Resources
Foundation: start here · Depth: go deeper · Mastery: for the dedicated
Foundation
Depth
Mastery
Operate Team Under Charter for 30 Days with Evidence of Real Use
30 days of operation after charter sign-off
The hardest part of a team charter is not writing it — it is the first 30 days when the team's existing habits pull against the new norms. This milestone requires evidence that the charter was used to make a real decision, resolve a real ambiguity, or address a real conflict during the first 30 days. A charter that everyone agreed to and then silently ignored does not satisfy the standard.
Proof required
Submit: (1) a 30-day log showing the charter was referenced or actively used — at minimum 3 entries, each dated, describing a specific situation where the charter provided guidance or resolved ambiguity; (2) one specific example with more detail: the situation, which charter element applied, how it guided the decision, and whether the outcome was as intended; (3) any amendments to the charter since sign-off and why they were made — a charter with no amendments in 30 days of real use warrants explanation.
What gets checked
- 30-day log entries are specific, dated events — not a summary statement such as 'we used the charter regularly'; each entry must describe a specific situation
- Detailed example shows the charter changed what happened — 'we discussed the issue' is not evidence; 'the conflict escalated to sync because we had exhausted async per the charter' shows the charter was operational
- Charter amendments are honest — either amendments with reasons, or a credible explanation for why none were needed (a very short and flexible charter, or a genuinely low-conflict 30 days)
Resources
Foundation
Run 90-Day Charter Retrospective with Expert Review
1–2 weeks for retrospective facilitation and expert review session
The 90-day mark is the first meaningful checkpoint: long enough that the team has real data on which norms helped and which created friction, short enough that the charter can still be reshaped before bad patterns solidify. The retrospective is a structured team conversation, not a manager's assessment. The ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION Level 2 standard applies: a named, qualified reviewer must challenge the submitter on specific design decisions.
Proof required
Submit: (1) the 90-day retrospective document: at minimum one norm that worked as intended with evidence, one norm that did not work as expected with evidence, and the specific charter changes the team agreed on as a result; (2) the amended charter after the retrospective, with tracked changes or a summary of what changed; (3) documentation of a real-time Q&A session with a named reviewer who has ≥3 years of people management experience and a verifiable professional profile — the documentation must include specific challenge questions and your responses; the reviewer must not be a current direct report or close personal friend.
What gets checked
- Retrospective document uses specific evidence — 'the decision process worked well' is an impression; 'we used the defined decision process in 6 of 8 contentious situations and escalations to me dropped by roughly half' is evidence
- Charter amendments are connected to retrospective findings — each amendment must trace back to a specific team-identified problem
- Q&A documentation shows the reviewer challenged design choices — a reviewer who only said 'this looks good' did not meet the adversarial standard; look for reviewer questions like 'why did you design the decision process this way rather than X?'
Resources
Foundation
Depth