Research Integrity

ScottGraffius.com | Blog | Intersection of Project Leadership with Business and Technology

Government of Canada Features Research by Scott M. Graffius

17 April 2026

BY SCOTT M. GRAFFIUS | ScottGraffius.com

government-of-canada-features-research-by-scott-m-graffius-v2-lwres

Recommended Citation

Graffius, S. M. (2026, April 17). Government of Canada Features Research by Scott M. Graffius. ScottGraffius.com. https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/government-of-canada-features-research-by-scott-m-graffius.html

Government of Canada Foreign Interference Commission, Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions, and Summary Report and Its Use of Graffius' Research

In September 2023, the Government of Canada established the Foreign Interference Commission. This body was created to investigate concerns about foreign interference in the country’s democratic processes. Led by Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, the Commission functions as a fact-finding and advisory group. Its purpose is to examine evidence, hold public hearings, and produce reports that assess threats and recommend measures to strengthen electoral integrity and public confidence. It carries out this mandate in phases, culminating in published findings and recommendations for government action.

The Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions is the Commission's formal inquiry. Its charter directs the Commissioner to investigate and assess alleged interference by foreign states or actors, evaluate its impact on Canada’s general elections, and review how government officials and agencies handled information about threats. It also examines the capacity of federal institutions to detect, deter, and respond to foreign interference, including protections for vulnerable communities and the effectiveness of existing safeguards. More broadly, the inquiry aims to enhance transparency, reinforce trust in democratic institutions, and provide recommendations to better protect Canada’s electoral system.

The Summary Report: Disinformation, Digital Space, and Democratic Processes, authored by Vivek Krishnamurthy and published on the Foreign Interference Commission's website, examines the challenges of identifying, evaluating, and responding to misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation in contemporary digital environments. It explores issues of scale, intent, moderation error, and regulatory responses, with particular attention to implications for democratic systems.

The Summary Report cites Scott M. Graffius’ "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research. However, the Summary Report materially mischaracterizes this work. Citations can readily create an impression of alignment or endorsement where none exists—particularly for readers who do not scrutinize the underlying research in detail. To maintain the integrity of his work and prevent misunderstanding, Graffius proactively provides the following objective, evidence-based assessment of the Summary Report, including its use of his research.

Graffius does not endorse the Summary Report.

Critical Analysis of Summary Report, Including Its Use of Graffius' Research

1. Mischaracterization of "Engagement" as "Views."

In social media and digital marketing, views and engagement represent distinct metrics that serve different purposes in understanding audience behavior. A view is a measure of exposure. It’s a passive metric about reach or visibility rather than interaction. Engagement, by contrast, captures active participation, tracking when a user interacts with content through actions such as liking, commenting, or sharing a post. Tracking engagement offers a deeper insight into how compelling or resonant the content is to its audience.

Some social media research tracks views—the mere display of content. By contrast, engagement (such as likes, shares, comments) measures impact. For those distinctions, Graffius' "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research analyzes engagement. Although the Summary Report cites this research, it misrepresents it as measuring views, incorrectly describing it as “the time by which half of its audience has seen it.” In doing so, the report conflates engagement with views. This misrepresentation constitutes a material analytical error that undermines the accuracy of the report’s interpretation and the reliability of its conclusions.

Excerpts from the Summary Report are shown below.

government-of-canada-features-research-by-scott-m-graffius---excerpts-lwres

government-of-canada-features-research-by-scott-m-graffius---excerpts-lwres

The Summary Report cited the 2024 edition of Graffius' "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts." For context, a visual from it is shown below.

-scott-m-graffius---lifespan-halflife-of-social-media-posts---infographic-visual---2024-edition---v-23122407---jpg-1000x570

Details—including a link to it, the Summary Report, and more—are in the bibliography section of this article.

Additionally, because this article is written in 2026, a visual from the current (2026) edition of Graffius’ respective work is also provided below for completeness and contemporaneous context. The 2026 edition stands out for its:

◾️ Scope (5.6 million posts),
◾️ Coverage (11 platforms),
◾️ Methodology (multi-source, representative, data-driven),
◾️ Continuity (annual updates), and
◾️ Value (actionable insights).

scott-m-graffius-lifespan-halflife-of-social-media-posts-update-for-2026-summary-visual-v26012207-jpg-lwres

Graffius' "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" has been correctly used by businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, publications, media outlets, and others around the world. Select examples include Community and Public Health Education Methods, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne), Frontiers in Public Health, GoDaddy, IEEE, Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), Marketing in the Metaverse, Maximizing LinkedIn for Business Growth, The Ministère de la Culture (The French Ministry of Culture), Pinterest Inc., Podcasting Strategy Show, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Strategic Business Research, Telecommunications Policy, Xavier Degraux, and many more.

2. Overgeneralization of Half-Life.

Graffius' research notes, "the half-life of posts varies by social media platform," and that point is clearly demonstrated by the data. Here are select examples from the respective (2024) edition of Graffius' research:

The average half-life of engagement on X (formerly Twitter) is 43 minutes.
The average half-life of engagement on Facebook is 76 minutes (equivalent to 1.27 hours).
The average half-life of engagement on Instagram is 1,185 minutes (equivalent to 19.75 hours).
The average half-life of engagement on YouTube is 12,717 minutes (equivalent to 211.95 hours or 8.83 days)
The average half-life of engagement on Pinterest is 164,518 minutes (equivalent to 2,741.97 hours or 114.25 days or 3.76 months).

However, the Summary Report states: "Social media content’s 'half-life'—the time by which half of its audience has seen it—is measured in hours if not minutes, creating a narrow window for proactive action." That does not clearly acknowledge platform-specific variation. Additionally, the report’s characterization compresses heterogeneous dynamics into an unjustified generalization. As a result, the report’s assumptions and conclusions rest on a flawed analytical foundation.

3. Conceptual Ambiguity in MDM Classification.

The Summary Report acknowledges the difficulty of distinguishing misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM). However, its proposed framework introduces several limitations. The top three follow. First, it implies a continuum of truth that may obscure categorical distinctions. Second, it does not operationalize how classifications should be made in practice. And third, it relies heavily on intent, which the report itself admits is often difficult or impossible to determine.

The result is a framework that is descriptive but operationally underdeveloped. Those factors limit its applicability in real-world moderation, policy, or research contexts.

4. Unresolved Tradeoffs and Limited Empirical Basis for Interventions.

The Summary Report highlights the inherent tension between minimizing moderation errors and addressing the harms at scale. It emphasizes the importance of avoiding false positives while also advocating for proactive intervention.

But it does not provide a clear, evidence-based framework for navigating this tradeoff. Minimizing false positives implies restraint, while proactive moderation requires action under uncertainty. The report identifies this dilemma but leaves it unresolved.

At the same time, the report advances several policy recommendations—including increased data access, risk-based regulation, A/B testing of interventions, and design-based solutions. While directionally reasonable, these proposals have limited empirical substantiation.

The report acknowledges a lack of robust evidence on what interventions are most effective, yet it recommends approaches without an evidentiary foundation. This results in a normative bias toward action without a corresponding analytical framework to evaluate effectiveness, weakening the overall guidance.

Conclusion

The Summary Report provides an overview of the challenges associated with misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation in digital environments. However, it exhibits several significant issues and limitations, including:

A material mischaracterization of cited research (views vs. engagement);
Overgeneralization of respective social media dynamics;
Conceptual ambiguity in the classification of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation; and
An unresolved tradeoff between intervention and accuracy, coupled with limited empirical support for proposed solutions.

The identified deficiencies materially undermine the report’s validity, reliability, and evidentiary foundation. Accordingly, the Summary Report's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations should be treated with caution.

Bibliography

Canada (Government of Canada) (n.d.). Foreign Interference Commission. https://foreigninterferencecommission.ca/

Graffius, S. M. (2024, January 1). Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts: Update for 2024. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21043.60965

Graffius, S. M. (2026, January 3). Scott M. Graffius' Phases of Team Development - Applied to Human Teams and Human-AI Teams: 2026 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18184.89601

Krishnamurthy, V. (2024, October 30). Summary Report: Disinformation, Digital Space, and Democratic Processes. Foreign Interference Commission. Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions. https://foreigninterferencecommission.ca/fileadmin/foreign_interference_commission/Documents/Policy_Consultation_Documents/Summaries/3_KRISHNAMURTHY-Summary_Report.pdf

About Scott M. Graffius

scott_m_graffius_-_blue_-_1000x1000_-lwres

Scott M. Graffius is a strategic transformation leader who drives AI, Agile, and broader business and technology initiatives to deliver measurable value across projects, programs, portfolios, and PMOs. He is an expert in the teamwork tradecraft of both human and human-AI teams, including the “exotic team dynamics” that emerge. He is also an authority on the temporal patterns of social media, including the half-life of audience engagement.

He’s a practitioner, researcher, thought leader, award-winning author, and keynote speaker who’s taken the stage at 98 conferences and other events across 25 countries.

He’s delivered over $2.3 billion in value for Fortune 500 companies and other leaders in technology, entertainment, financial services, healthcare, and beyond.

Businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities use Graffius and feature his work. Examples include Adobe, Bayer, Boston University, Ford, Gartner, Harvard Medical School, IEEE, Johns Hopkins University, Microsoft, MSN, National Academy of Sciences, Oracle, Pinterest Inc., Project Management Institute, UC San Diego, Verizon, Yale University, and others.

The following sections provide additional information on his experience, contributions, and influence.

Experience

Graffius heads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded expertise, and consulting services to the public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™.

Graffius is a former VP of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment, and more.

He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.

Award-Winning Author

Graffius has authored three books.

Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions, his first book, earned 17 awards.
Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change, his second book, was named one of the best Scrum books of all time by BookAuthority.
Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum, his third book and his first work of fiction, was released in April 2025. The book trailer is on YouTube.

International Public Speaker

Organizations worldwide engage Graffius to present on tech (including AI), Agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership. He crafts and delivers unique and compelling talks and workshops. Graffius has conducted 98 sessions across 25 countries. Select examples of events include Agile Trends Gov, BSides (Newcastle Upon Tyne), Conf42 Quantum Computing, DevDays Europe, DevOps Institute, DevOpsDays (Geneva), Frug’Agile, IEEE, Microsoft, Scottish Summit, Scrum Alliance RSG (Nepal), Techstars, and W Love Games International Video Game Development Conference (Helsinki), and more.

With an average rating of 4.81 (on a scale of 1-5), sessions are highly valued.

The speaker engagement request form is here.

Thought Leadership and Influence

Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have showcased Graffius and his contributions—spanning his books, talks, workshops, and beyond. Select examples include:

Adobe,
American Management Association,
Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,
Bayer,
BMC Software,
Boston University,
Broadcom,
Cisco,
Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts - Germany,
Computer Weekly,
Constructor University - Germany,
Data Governance Success,
Deimos Aerospace,
DevOps Institute,
Dropbox,
EU's European Commission,
Ford Motor Company,
Gartner,
GoDaddy,
Harvard Medical School,
Hasso Plattner Institute - Germany,
IEEE,
Innovation Project Management,
Johns Hopkins University,
Journal of Neurosurgery,
Lam Research (Semiconductors),
Leadership Worthy,
Life Sciences Trainers and Educators Network,
London South Bank University,
Microsoft,
MSN,
NASSCOM,
National Academy of Sciences,
New Zealand Government,
Oracle,
Pinterest Inc.,
Project Management Institute,
Mary Raum (Professor of National Security Affairs, United States Naval War College),
SANS Institute,
SBG Neumark - Germany,
Singapore Institute of Technology,
Torrens University - Australia,
TBS Switzerland,
Tufts University,
UC San Diego,
UK Sports Institute,
University of Galway - Ireland,
US Department of Energy,
US National Park Service,
US Soccer,
US Tennis Association,
Verizon,
Wrike,
Yale University,
and many others.

Graffius has played a key role in the Project Management Institute (PMI) in developing professional standards. He was a member of multiple teams that authored, reviewed, and produced:

Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Second Edition.
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge—Sixth Edition.
The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition.
The Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition.

Additional details are here.

He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.

Acclaimed Authority on Teamwork Tradecraft

Scott-M-Graffius-Phases-Of-Team-Development-2026-Update-v26010307G2-jpg-lwres

Graffius is a renowned authority on teamwork tradecraft. Informed by the research of Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen, over 150 subsequent studies, and Graffius' first-hand professional experience with, and analysis of, team leadership and performance, Graffius created his "Phases of Team Development" intellectual property as a unique perspective and visual conveying the five phases of team development. First introduced in 2008 and periodically updated, his work provides a diagnostic and strategic guide for navigating team dynamics. It provides actionable insights for leaders across industries to develop high-performance teams. Its adoption by esteemed organizations such as Yale University, IEEE, Cisco, Microsoft, Ford, Oracle, Broadcom, the U.S. National Park Service, and the Journal of Neurosurgery, among others, highlights its utility and value, solidifying its status as an indispensable resource for elevating team performance and driving organizational excellence. In 2026, Graffius added human-AI teamwork—including the "exotic team dynamics" which emerge when advanced AI collaborates as a teammate—to his "Phases of Team Development."

The 2026 edition of Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" intellectual property is here.

Expert on Temporal Dynamics on Social Media Platforms

Graffius is also an authority on temporal dynamics on social media platforms. His "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research—first published in 2018 and updated annually—delivers a precise quantitative analysis of post longevity across digital platforms, utilizing advanced statistical techniques to determine mean half-life with precision. It establishes a solid empirical base, effectively highlighting the ephemeral nature of content within social media ecosystems. Referenced and applied by leading entities—such as Fast Company, GoDaddy, Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), Ministère de la Culture (French Ministry of Culture), Pinterest Inc., PNAS, and Telecommunications Policy, among others—his research exemplifies methodological rigor and sustained significance in the field of digital informatics.

The 2026 edition of Graffius "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research is here.

Education and Professional Certifications

Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:

Certified SAFe 6 Agilist (SA),
Certified Scrum Professional - ScrumMaster (CSP-SM),
Certified Scrum Professional - Product Owner (CSP-PO),
Certified ScrumMaster (CSM),
Certified Scrum Product Owner (CSPO),
Project Management Professional (PMP),
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (LSSGB), and
IT Service Management Foundation (ITIL).

He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Advancing AI, Agile, and Project/PMO Management

Scott M. Graffius continues to advance the fields of AI, Agile, and Project/PMO Management through his leadership, research, writing, and real-world impact. Businesses and other organizations leverage Graffius’ insights to drive their success.

Discover Scott’s Books

Connect with and follow Scott on LinkedIn, X, YouTube, Facebook, Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon, and ResearchGate.

pinterest-inc-references-scott-m-graffius0027-research---v1-3---lwres

cisco-features-scott-m.-graffius0027-0027phases-of-team-development0027-work---rectange---lwres

ieee-xplore-publication-featured-scott-m-graffius-phases-of-team-development-work---rev-sept-19-2024---hires

ucsd-featured-ip-of-scott-m-graffius---v25122907-giesel-lwres

johns-hopkins-university-features-work-of-scott-m-graffius---v24080107---tw---lwres

semiconductor-manufacturing-firm-lam-research-features-scott-m-graffius2019-2018phases-of-team-development2019-intellectual-property---tw-sz-format---lwres

bayer-licensed-ip-of-agile-expert-scott-m-graffius---agilescrumguide_com---lwres

ASG - Award Winning Agile Scrum Book by Scott M Graffius - v260427 - lwres

scott_m_graffius_agile_transformation_sq_lr_1000x1000

gifts-that-inspire-joy---scottgraffius-dot-com---v251014---lwres

scottgraffius-com-article-sections-v2026-more-lwres

List of Additional Articles

scottgraffius-com-article-sections-v2026-cite-lwres

How to Cite This Article

Graffius, S. M. (2026, April 17). Government of Canada Features Research by Scott M. Graffius. ScottGraffius.com. https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/government-of-canada-features-research-by-scott-m-graffius.html

scottgraffius-com-article-sections-v2026-doi-lwres

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Coming soon

scottgraffius-com-article-sections-v2026-ackn-lwres

Content Acknowledgements

The Government of Canada established the Foreign Interference Commission to investigate concerns about foreign interference in the country’s democratic processes.

The Summary Report: Disinformation, Digital Space, and Democratic Processes, authored by Vivek Krishnamurthy and published on the Foreign Interference Commission's website, examines the challenges of identifying, evaluating, and responding to misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation in contemporary digital environments.

The Summary Report cites Scott M. Graffius’ "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research.

All names, marks, and content are the property of their respective owners.

Foreign Interference Commission (and its Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions) names and marks are the property of the Government of Canada.

The Summary Report is the property of its author.

This article includes limited excerpts, attributed and used under fair use doctrine for purposes of news reporting, commentary, and analysis.

"Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" is copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.

scottgraffius-com-article-sections-v2026-tags-hashtags-lwres

Tags and Hashtags

Government of Canada
Canadian Government
Disinformation, Misinformation, and Malinformation
Social Media Metrics
Digital Governance
Foreign Interference
Electoral Integrity
Research Integrity
Content Moderation
Data Misinterpretation
Public Policy Analysis
Foreign Interference Commission
Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts
Scott M. Graffius
Summary Report: Disinformation, Digital Space, and Democratic Processes

#Canada
#Government
#Disinformation
#Misinformation
#DigitalGovernance
#SocialMedia
#SocialMediaResearch
#DataIntegrity
#ResearchMatters
#ContentModeration
#ElectionIntegrity
#PolicyAnalysis
#InfoDisorder
#DigitalPolicy
#ForeignInterferenceCommission

scottgraffius-com-article-sections-v2026-notes-lwres

Post-Publication Notes

If there are any supplements or updates to this article after the date of publication, they will appear here.

Copyright

Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.

Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.

Tags: Government of Canada • Canadian Government • Social Media Metrics • Digital Governance • Scott M. Graffius • Summary Report: Disinformation, Digital Space, and Democratic Processes • Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts • Foreign Interference Commission • Public Policy Analysis • Data Misinterpretation • Content Moderation • Research Integrity • Electoral Integrity • Disinformation, Misinformation, and Malinformation

A Critical Analysis of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and Its Use of Scott M. Graffius' Research

14 October 2026

BY SCOTT M. GRAFFIUS | ScottGraffius.com

critical-analysis-of-five-core-themes-of-intentional-team-formation---vis-lwres

Recommended Citation

Graffius, S. M. (2026, October 14). A Critical Analysis of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and Its Use of Scott M. Graffius' Research. ScottGraffius.com. https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/critical-analysis-of-five-core-themes-of-intentional-team-formation.html

About This Article

Source information and links for materials cited are provided in the References section.

Introduction

"Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation," published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (Springer Nature), examines a cross-disciplinary team formed during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop a grant proposal. Based on that experience, the authors identify five themes they recommend teams address: Team Development, Effective Communication, Perspective Alignment, Team Management, and Project Workflow. Spoiler: The paper has many issues.

"Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" features Scott M. Graffius' research. However, its description of Graffius' work is inaccurate, and the citation is invalid. For those and other reasons, and to proactively clarify any potential misunderstandings, Graffius provides the following objective, evidence-based assessment of the paper, and he does not endorse the paper.

10 Key Issues

1. Problems With References and the Reference List

References should direct readers to identifiable sources that support the claims for which they are cited. The paper falls short on both counts. Select examples illustrate the problem.

The paper cites a RAND Corporation report, "On Distributed Communications: Summary Overview" (attributed to Baran, 2018), to support a claim that team members expanded their collaborations beyond the project. The RAND report concerns distributed communications and the development of resilient communication networks. It does not document expanded collaboration among the team members or substantiate the paper’s claims about team science and grant-writing networks.

The paper cites Tuckman and Jensen’s 1977 work on group development in connection with the proposition that scientific alignment develops through the divergence and convergence of ideas. The paper does not explain how the cited work supports this specific proposition. Without that connection, the reference does not establish the claim for which it is offered.

The reference attributed to Graffius is incorrect. The error is delineated in point 10.

2. The Evidence Is Limited and Non-Comparative

The quantitative evidence consists of four surveys of team members, with 21–36 respondents per survey, analyzed using what the paper calls univariate descriptive statistics, alongside a small network analysis.

The study reports no comparison team, no independent baseline against which to assess the intervention, no inferential statistical analysis, and no reported effect sizes or confidence intervals. The respondents were members of the team whose process was being evaluated. Some had also helped design or implement that process.

Those data can describe participants' reported experiences. They cannot, on their own, establish that the framework caused improvements, that it outperforms other approaches, or that the findings generalize to other teams.

The paper presents the five themes (Team Development, Effective Communication, Perspective Alignment, Team Management, and Project Workflow) as essential targets for teams. A single case can generate useful hypotheses and practical lessons, but it does not provide a sound basis for declaring a set of themes necessary or effective across settings.

The study’s descriptive evidence is not equivalent to validation. The paper does not demonstrate that its framework improves team performance.

3. The Central Constructs Were Not Adequately Measured

The paper places psychological safety, mutual trust, and respect near the center of its argument. It asserts that aligning contributions and expectations through these conditions helps teams achieve their goals.

Yet the paper does not report adequate validated measures of these central constructs. Instead, it relies on selected agreement items and network diagrams, then interprets some observed behaviors as evidence of psychological safety.

That's a substantial gap between the measurement and the claim. A network diagram may show who reported learning from whom or who was identified as a leader. It does not, by itself, establish that participants felt psychologically safe, trusted one another, or experienced mutual respect.

The paper's limitations section acknowledges that antecedent conditions were not measured directly. Its abstract and conclusion nevertheless use language that presents relationships involving these conditions as findings of the study.

The authors need to distinguish between concepts that inform their interpretation and variables their study actually measured. The paper does not make this distinction consistently, leaving insufficient empirical evidence to establish that its conclusions about key constructs are supported by the measurements.

4. Causal Claims Without a Causal Design

The paper suggests that its approaches produced positive outcomes. The design does not establish that conclusion.

Consider the reported growth in connections among team members. People brought together to work on the same grant proposal have an obvious reason to develop new working relationships: they are collaborating on a shared objective. That change could occur without the particular framework or interventions described in the paper.

The paper's conclusion states that the team significantly extended its networks, yet the paper does not report a statistical significance test supporting that claim. An increase in a reported count does not, by itself, establish statistical significance. If the authors intended "significantly" in its statistical sense, the paper does not provide the reported analysis needed to substantiate that interpretation.

The authors may reasonably report that participants described new connections or that the network diagrams contain more reported ties after team formation. Those are descriptive observations. They do not establish that the intervention caused the change.

Causal claims require evidence capable of distinguishing the proposed explanation from plausible alternatives. The study does not do that.

5. The Team Counts and Survey Denominators Need Reconciliation

The paper describes a final team of 25 members and reports 39 members at one point in the project. Its ethics statement separately refers to an original early-phase team of 44 people. The paper does not clearly reconcile these different team-size figures. The four reported survey denominators were 39, 33, 25, and 27.

There may be reasonable explanations for these different figures. Membership may have changed over time, and not every survey need have been administered to the same group. The paper should nevertheless provide a clear account of who was on the team at each stage, who received each survey, and how many people responded.

As presented, the figures do not form a readily reconciled account of team membership and participation.

Attrition also deserves more attention. The paper reports that some individuals who left the team early felt they had gained or strengthened team and people skills. However, it does not clearly explain how former team members were included in, or excluded from, the final survey, or how their experiences were accounted for in the findings.

A change from an original 44-person team to a final team of 25 is not a trivial detail in a study of intentional team formation. The paper identifies several reasons for departures or reduced engagement, including competing commitments, personal circumstances, pandemic fatigue, and perceived lack of fit as the project evolved. However, it does not clearly reconcile the different team-size figures or sufficiently explain how membership changes affected the study's assessments and findings.

The conclusions should account for that uncertainty. Findings drawn largely from those who remained may not represent the experiences of the entire group.

6. The Qualitative Analysis Is Not Sufficiently Documented

The paper states that the five themes emerged when the core author team coded the qualitative data. It provides too little information for readers to evaluate that process. The paper does not adequately explain the coding procedure, identify the number of coders, describe the codebook, explain how disagreements were handled, or specify the volume of qualitative material analyzed. The underlying qualitative data are not available for readers to inspect.

The paper also says that some recommendations draw on facilitators’ experience. That experience may be useful, but it raises a question the authors should address: how much did the five themes emerge from participants' data, and how much reflected frameworks or assumptions the facilitators brought to the project?

The themes overlap with established work on team science and team management. The paper should explain more clearly what is novel about them and how the data support that contribution.

Qualitative analysis can produce valuable findings without following a single prescribed procedure. It still requires sufficient transparency for readers to understand how researchers moved from source material to codes, from codes to themes, and from themes to recommendations. The paper provides only a limited account of that analytical process, making it difficult for readers to assess how the reported themes were derived from the underlying data.

7. The Authors Evaluated a Process in Which They Participated

The paper's evaluation raises questions about independence. All authors were members of the team or contracted team-science facilitators, and some also served on the proposal's leadership team. The team-science professionals hired to support the project participated in the process under evaluation, and some co-authored the paper. The paper declares no competing interests, while several cited works were also co-authored by members of the author team. These circumstances do not automatically invalidate the study. They do, however, heighten the importance of explaining how the evaluation was conducted, how potential bias was managed, and what evidence would have counted as an unsuccessful outcome.

The grant proposal was not funded. The authors acknowledge that outcome but emphasize multiple metrics of success and maintain that the process was nevertheless successful. There is nothing inherently wrong with identifying benefits beyond a grant award. Teams may develop skills, strengthen relationships, and generate useful ideas even when a proposal is unsuccessful. The concern is whether those additional benefits provide sufficient evidence to validate the process, particularly without clearly specified criteria for success, a systematic evaluation, or adequate safeguards against self-assessment bias.

When the people who designed and implemented a framework also determine that it worked, the assessment needs safeguards against self-confirmation. The paper does not adequately demonstrate such safeguards. Consequently, the authors' favorable interpretation is difficult to distinguish from their own assessment of the work, particularly because the paper does not sufficiently establish how potential bias was managed or how the reported evidence was used to evaluate success.

The ethics disclosure also deserves attention. The authors report that participant recruitment, consent, and data collection preceded the institutional review board (IRB) determination. They explain that the activities were initially conducted as a team assessment rather than as research, and that the decision to publish arose later. Written permission to use de-identified survey data for manuscript development was subsequently sought from participants. These circumstances warrant consideration alongside the study’s methods, consent arrangements, and the authors’ account of why prospective IRB review was not required.

8. The Recommendations Go Beyond What Was Tested

The paper's section on cross-disciplinary team applications describes the five themes as "particularly valuable" for five types of teams, including teams forming in virtual environments, large multi-institutional consortia, and teams in high-stakes or high-uncertainty contexts.

The authors attribute these broader recommendations in part to facilitators’ experience. Such experience can inform a proposal, but it does not establish that the framework has been tested or shown to work in all the settings listed.

The paper would be stronger if it identified these applications as hypotheses or practitioner recommendations for future evaluation. As written, the language sometimes presents extrapolations as established findings.

9. Editorial Errors

The paper has editorial problems. For example, the Figure 6 caption gives a response scale as "strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor agree, agree, or strongly disagree." The labels are internally inconsistent: the middle category is malformed, the "strongly disagree" endpoint is repeated, and “strongly agree” is absent.

Elsewhere, the paper refers to "a tenant of psychological safety" where "tenet" is intended.

10. The Citation of Graffius’ Work Is Incorrect as Presented

For context and clarity, information on Graffius' work is presented below. Issues with the "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" paper follow it.

Background and Context on Graffius' "Phases of Team Development"

Team development is commonly described as a progression through five phases or stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. Bruce W. Tuckman introduced the first four phases in 1965, and he and Mary Ann C. Jensen added the fifth phase in 1977. Tuckman and Jensen described these phases only in broad, general terms, without codifying specific characteristics, strategies, or a performance graph.

Scott M. Graffius subsequently developed and codified what Tuckman and Jensen did not: a detailed, structured set of diagnostic characteristics for each phase; a corresponding set of practical strategies for each phase; and an original, proprietary, empirically derived performance graph built from statistical analysis of thousands of data points across hundreds of diverse projects. Graffius created his "Phases of Team Development" as a unique perspective and visual conveying the five phases of team development, inclusive of a graph showing how performance varies by phase, as well as the characteristics and strategies for each phase. Leaders can apply these insights to advance the effectiveness and success of teams.

Graffius initially developed his unique material in 2008 and periodically updates it. He expanded it, for example, in 2026 to include content on human-AI teaming, where artificial intelligence is advanced (agentic, autonomous, or autopoietic). It builds on his work on hundreds of projects (including AI development), his expertise in teamwork tradecraft (both human teams and human-AI teams, including the exotic team dynamics that emerge from human-AI teams), and his analysis of hundreds of studies on both human-only and human-AI collaboration.

The actionable insights provide a practical framework to navigate the complexities of team dynamics. Graffius' resource helps practitioners advance the effectiveness and success of both human-only and human-AI teams.

Businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, publications, and media outlets have used and cited Graffius' "Phases of Team Development." Select examples include:

Adobe

American Management Association

Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute

Bayer

Boston University

Broadcom

Buckinghamshire New University

Cisco

DevOps Institute

Erste Group Bank AG

Ford Motor Company

Government of Finland

HAN University of Applied Sciences

Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering GmbH

How Teams Work

IEEE Access

Johns Hopkins University

Journal of Neurosurgery

Microsoft

National Science Foundation’s LTER Network

Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA)

Ohio State University

Oracle

Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA)

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Technical University of Munich

Torrens University

Tufts University

U.S. National Park Service

U.S. Soccer

U.S. Tennis Association

UC San Diego

UK Sports Institute

University of Galway

University of Greenwich

University of New South Wales

Warsaw University of Technology

Yale University

And many more

Read more here: Phases of Team Development

The "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" paper states: "Graffius (2024) updates Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) framework, noting limited practical evidence and strategies specifically for the Forming stage." Immediately before this statement, the authors note, "… studies still flag the team formation stage as a critical but under-explored period." Immediately after the sentence about Graffius, they state, "… demonstrates unexplored dynamics in initial collaboration interaction." However, the paper's characterization of Graffius' work is incorrect. The Forming phase is neither unexplored nor under-explored.

The paper's reference list gives the following citation:

Graffius S (2024) Revisiting Tuckman: evidence-based strategies for the forming stage of team development. J Leadersh Organ Stud 31(1):5–16.

The citation is invalid:

The paper indicates: "Revisiting Tuckman: evidence-based strategies for the forming stage of team development," on pages 5-16, in issue 1, volume 31, of the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.
However, there is no such article in the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Further, there is no article on pages 5-16 of it. What appears on pages 5-24 is: "Disobeying the Leader: Creative Deviance as a Mechanism Between Psychological Ownership and Social Undermining," written by Jigyashu Shukla, Rebecca Bennett, Robert Folger, and Ronit Kark.

As summarized above, Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" has been used and cited by publications and others worldwide. Based on context, the 2024 submission date of the "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" paper, and its reference to Graffius' 2024 work, the correct citation would be:

Graffius, S. M. (2024, January 5). Phases of Team Development: 2024 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28629.40168

Conclusion

"Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" documents one team's experience and proposes lessons for other teams. It may offer useful ideas, but it does not establish that its five themes are necessary, that the framework improves team performance, or that its broader recommendations are empirically validated. The study is a single, unreplicated case based largely on internal self-reports, without a comparison group or adequate measurement of several central constructs. Broader claims require clear operational definitions, appropriate measures, transparent analytical procedures, a reconciled account of team membership and survey participation, and research designs capable of testing outcomes.

The paper’s conclusions are further undermined by causal claims unsupported by the study design, network interpretations that exceed the reported analysis, inconsistent accounts of team membership, insufficiently transparent qualitative procedures, and other methodological and reporting issues. The authors also evaluate a process in which they participated and judge it successful despite the grant proposal’s failure to secure funding, without sufficiently establishing safeguards against self-confirmation. The paper mischaracterizes Scott M. Graffius' work and it provides an invalid citation.

Readers should treat the paper’s findings with caution. Graffius does not endorse the paper.

References

Brennan, A. N., Rollinson, C. R., Love, H., Schulz, A. N., Reidy, B., Grossman, J. J., Dickmann, E. M., Fisher, E. R., McCormack, L., Richardson, A. D., LaMontagne, J., Helmus, M. R., & Li, D. (2026, September 29). Five core themes of intentional team formation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-09246-w

Graffius, S. M. (2024, January 5). Phases of Team Development: 2024 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28629.40168

Graffius, S. M. (2026, January 3). Scott M. Graffius' Phases of Team Development - Applied to Human Teams and Human-AI Teams: 2026 Update. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18184.89601

About the Authors of the Paper

The authors of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and their affiliations, as listed in the paper, are:

Andrea N. Brennan, Christine R. Rollinson, Brendon Reidy, and Luke McCormack: Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois, USA
Hannah Love: Divergent Science, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Ellen R. Fisher: Divergent Science, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Ashley N. Schulz: Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA
Jake J. Grossman: St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota, USA
Ellyn M. Dickmann: Dickmann and Associates, LLC, Loveland, Colorado, USA
Andrew D. Richardson: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Jalene LaMontagne: University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Matthew R. Helmus: Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Daijiang Li: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

About the Paper’s Journal: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications is a peer-reviewed, fully open-access journal published by Springer Nature. Launched in 2015 as Palgrave Communications, it adopted its current name in June 2020. The journal publishes research across the humanities, social sciences, and behavioural sciences, including interdisciplinary scholarship using theoretical, qualitative, quantitative, and methodological approaches. Its stated editorial commitments include rigorous peer review, robust research, and high editorial and ethical standards. Articles are published online and made freely accessible to readers. The journal’s broad scope encompasses psychology, sociology, management, communication, education, and complex networks.

About the Journal’s Publisher: Springer Nature

Springer Nature is a global research, educational, and professional publisher formed in 2015 through the combination of Nature Publishing Group, Macmillan Education, and Springer Science+Business Media. Its publishing portfolio includes scholarly journals, academic books, and research resources spanning science, technology, medicine, the humanities, and the social sciences. The company supports researchers, educators, students, and professionals through its publishing platforms and related services. Springer Nature also maintains publishing policies addressing research integrity, editorial standards, and publication ethics. It publishes Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, the journal examined in this article.

About Scott M. Graffius

Scott M. Graffius is a technology leader, researcher, award-winning author, practitioner, consultant, thought leader, and international public speaker specializing in AI, Agile, project/program/portfolio management (PPPM), PMO leadership, and teamwork tradecraft. His work explores the intersection of human ingenuity and emerging technology, with a strong practitioner voice grounded in research, experimentation, and experience. His focus includes innovation, organizational performance, and the evolving practice of teamwork, including the "exotic team dynamics" that emerge when people collaborate with advanced artificial intelligence (agentic, autonomous, or autopoietic AI). Graffius has delivered more than $3.1 billion in business value for Fortune 500 companies and other organizations spanning technology, entertainment and media, financial services, healthcare, government, and other industries.

Businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, publications, and media outlets use Graffius and his work. Examples include Adobe, Bayer, Boston University, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Ford, Gartner, Harvard Medical School, IEEE, Innovation Project Management, Johns Hopkins University, Microsoft, MSN, National Academy of Sciences, Oracle, Pinterest Inc., Project Management Institute, UC San Diego, Verizon, Yale University, and others.

The following sections highlight his experience, leadership, contributions, research, and enduring influence across industries and institutions worldwide.

scott_m_graffius_-_blue_-_1000x1000_-lwres

Experience

Graffius heads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded expertise, and consulting services to the public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and enterprise PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™.

Graffius is a former VP of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment and media, and more.

He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.

Additional information is on LinkedIn.

Award-Winning Author

Graffius has authored three books.

Graffius' first book, Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions, earned 17 awards. It provides a practical, step-by-step guide to Scrum, enabling teams to deliver products in short cycles with rapid adaptation, fast time-to-market, and continuous improvement—which supports innovation and drives competitive advantage.

Paperback ISBN-13: 9781533370242
Kindle ASIN: B01FZ0JIIY

Additional information on Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions is here.

His second book, Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change, was named one of the best Scrum books of all time by BookAuthority. It tells the compelling story of an entertainment company's agile transformation—offering lessons that apply across industries.

Paperback ISBN-13: 9781072447962
Kindle ASIN: B07R9LJLPJ

Additional information on Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change is here.

Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum, is his third book—and his first work of fiction.

It's a fast-paced satirical story by that dismantles corporate Agile cosplay and other forms of "fake Agile" while delivering practical insights, actionable guidance, and proven practices for real-world Agile transformation success.

Packed with humor, quirky characters, sharp commentary on corporate culture and workplace absurdities, and actionable tips, it’s a must-read for Scrum Masters, Product Owners, Agile Coaches, Agile Project Managers, and other professionals interested in Agile project management and enterprise agility.

Kindle ASIN: B0F2SJ83WT
Audible ASIN: B0DJG163R5

Additional information on Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum is here.

Agile Protocol - sq - v260427-top9G-IG lwres

International Public Speaker

Organizations worldwide engage Graffius to present on technology (including AI), Agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and enterprise PMO leadership. He crafts and delivers unique and compelling talks and workshops.

Graffius has conducted 99 sessions across 25 countries. Select examples of events include Agile Trends Gov, BSides (Newcastle Upon Tyne), Conf42 Quantum Computing, DevDays Europe, DevOps Institute, DevOpsDays (Geneva), Frug’Agile, IEEE, Microsoft, Scottish Summit, Scrum Alliance RSG (Nepal), Techstars, and W Love Games International Video Game Development Conference (Helsinki), Future of Work and Advanced AI (Paris, France), and more.

With an average rating of 4.82 (on a scale of 1-5), sessions are highly valued.

The request form is here.

Thought Leadership and Influence

Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have showcased Graffius and his contributions—spanning his books, talks, workshops, and beyond. Select examples include:

Adobe,
American Management Association,
Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,
Bayer,
BCG,
BMC Software,
Boston Consulting Group (BCG),
Boston University,
Broadcom,
Cisco,
Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts - Germany,
Computer Weekly,
Constructor University - Germany,
Data Governance Success,
Deimos Aerospace,
DevOps Institute,
Dropbox,
EU's European Commission,
Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
Ford Motor Company,
Gartner,
GoDaddy,
Harvard Medical School,
Hasso Plattner Institute - Germany,
IEEE,
Innovation Project Management,
Johns Hopkins University,
Journal of Marketing,
Journal of Neurosurgery,
Lam Research (Semiconductors),
Leadership Worthy,
Life Sciences Trainers and Educators Network,
London South Bank University,
Microsoft,
MSN,
NASSCOM,
National Academy of Sciences,
New Zealand Government,
Ohio State University,
Oracle,
Pinterest Inc.,
Project Management Institute,
Mary Raum (Professor of National Security Affairs, United States Naval War College),
Round Square Global Educational Network,
Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP),
SANS Institute,
SBG Neumark - Germany,
Singapore Institute of Technology,
Torrens University - Australia,
TBS Switzerland,
Tufts University,
UC San Diego,
UK Sports Institute,
University of Galway - Ireland,
US Department of Energy,
US National Park Service,
US Soccer,
US Tennis Association,
Verizon,
Wrike,
Yale University,
and many others.

Graffius has played a key role in the Project Management Institute (PMI) in developing professional standards. He was a member of multiple teams that authored, reviewed, and produced:

He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.

Authority on Teamwork Tradecraft

Graffius is a renowned and highly-cited authority on teamwork tradecraft. Informed by the research of Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen, over 150 subsequent studies, and Graffius' first-hand professional experience with, and analysis of, team leadership and performance, Graffius created his "Phases of Team Development" intellectual property as a unique perspective and visual conveying the five phases of team development.

First introduced in 2008 and periodically updated, his work provides a diagnostic and strategic guide for navigating team dynamics. It provides actionable insights for leaders across industries to develop high-performance teams.

nsdm-publication-by-nsa-raum-referenced-work-by-graffius-on-team-development---2026-refresh-IG-lwres

nsdm-publication-by-nsa-raum-referenced-work-by-graffius-on-team-development---2026-refresh-IG-lwres

Its adoption by esteemed organizations—such as Yale University, IEEE, Cisco, Microsoft, Ford, Oracle, Broadcom, the U.S. National Park Service, and the Journal of Neurosurgery, among others—highlights its utility and value, solidifying its status as an indispensable resource for elevating team performance and driving organizational excellence.

In 2026, Graffius added human-AI teamwork—including the "exotic team dynamics" which emerge when advanced AI collaborates as a teammate—to his "Phases of Team Development." The 2026 edition is here.

Expert on Temporal Dynamics on Social Media Platforms

Graffius is also an authority on temporal dynamics on social media platforms. His "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research—first published in 2018 and updated annually—delivers a precise quantitative analysis of post longevity across digital platforms, utilizing advanced statistical techniques to determine mean half-life with precision. It establishes a solid empirical base, effectively highlighting the ephemeral nature of content within social media ecosystems.

Referenced and applied by leading entities—such as Fast Company, GoDaddy, Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), Ministère de la Culture, Pinterest Inc., PNAS, and Telecommunications Policy, among others—his research exemplifies methodological rigor and sustained significance in the field of digital informatics.

The 2026 edition of Graffius "Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts" research is here.

Education and Professional Certifications

Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:

Certified SAFe 6 Agilist (SA),
Certified Scrum Professional - ScrumMaster (CSP-SM),
Certified Scrum Professional - Product Owner (CSP-PO),
Certified ScrumMaster (CSM),
Certified Scrum Product Owner (CSPO),
Project Management Professional (PMP),
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (LSSGB), and
IT Service Management Foundation (ITIL).

He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Advancing AI, Agile, and Project/PMO Management

Scott M. Graffius continues to advance the fields of AI, Agile, and project/program/portfolio management (PPPM), and PMO leadership. Businesses and other organizations leverage Graffius’ insights to drive their success.

Booking

Graffius has generated over $3.1 billion in business value for Fortune 500 companies and other organizations served. Put that track record to work for you. For speaking engagements, use the request form; for other inquiries, email him.

Connect with and follow Scott on LinkedIn, X, YouTube, Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon, and ResearchGate.

scott-m-graffius-generated-over-3-point-1-billion-dollars---visual-hires-ig-lwres

scottgraffius-com-article-sections-v2026-more-lwres

List of Additional Articles

How to Cite This Article

Graffius, S. M. (2026, October 14). A Critical Analysis of "Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation" and Its Use of Scott M. Graffius' Research. ScottGraffius.com. https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/critical-analysis-of-five-core-themes-of-intentional-team-formation.html

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Coming soon

Content Acknowledgements

Names, marks, and content are the property of their respective owners.

This article discusses the "Five core themes of intentional team formation" paper by Andrea N. Brennan, Christine R. Rollinson, Hannah Love, Ashley N. Schulz, Brendon Reidy, Jake J. Grossman, Ellyn M. Dickmann, Ellen R. Fisher, Luke McCormack, Andrew D. Richardson, Jalene LaMontagne, Matthew R. Helmus, and Daijiang Li, published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (Springer Nature) on 29 September 2026: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-09246-w.

The paper references Scott M. Graffius' "Phases of Team Development" research on teamwork tradecraft.

The paper is © 2026 The Author(s) and is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

This article includes brief excerpts from the paper, attributed to its authors and used under the fair use doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107) for purposes of news reporting, commentary, and analysis. This article is independent commentary and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the paper's authors or Springer Nature.

"Phases of Team Development" is copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.

#ResearchIntegrity
#CriticalAnalysis
#TeamDevelopment
#ScientificIntegrity
#ResearchMethods
#TeamDynamics
#AcademicIntegrity
#EvidenceBased
#TeamScience
#ProjectManagement
#SpringerNature

Post-Publication Notes

If there are any supplements or updates to this article after the date of publication, they will appear here.

Copyright

Tags: #ResearchIntegrity • #CriticalAnalysis • #TeamDevelopment • #ScientificIntegrity • #ResearchMethods • #TeamDynamics • #AcademicIntegrity • #EvidenceBased • #TeamScience • Team Science • Scott M. Graffius • Springer Nature • Springer Nature • Humanities and Social Sciences Communications • Five Core Themes of Intentional Team Formation • Evidence-Based Practice • Citation Accuracy • Academic Integrity • Scientific Research Methods • Team Dynamics • Team Development • Critical Analysis • Research Integrity • #SpringerNature • #ProjectManagement