Name the contribution, not just the title
Titles can hide important differences. For each role, describe the decisions it owns, the work it delivers, the people it needs to work with and the points where another person must review or approve something. This makes gaps and overlaps easier to see.
Agree how the team will work together
Discuss the cadence of meetings, where notes and files live, how feedback is given and how a blocked decision is escalated. These habits may feel administrative, but they protect attention and help teams include people whose availability or communication style differs.
Plan a short review point
Set a date to ask what is working, what is unclear and what should change. A review point turns early assumptions into something the team can improve rather than silently work around. It is also a good moment to redistribute responsibilities if the project has changed.
Treat consent as ongoing
People should be able to update what they share and revisit a commitment when the reality of a project changes. Good collaboration makes room for a respectful “not now”, a renegotiation of scope or a handover—not just an all-or-nothing decision at the start.
A simple working-agreement checklist
- Who owns each decision and what depends on it?
- When will the team meet, and where will notes and files live?
- How will feedback, disagreement and escalation work?
- When will the team review its assumptions and redistribute work?
Ties and Teams can keep this context visible, but people decide what they agree to and can update or revisit their commitment.