W1-ABM-Tuckman Assessment

1. Problem Definition

Following the completion of the initial 5 day face to face programme and the formation of a working team called Emerald 2017, an assessment of the  group will be performed using the Bruce Tuckman 4 stage model in order to understand what stage the group is currently operating in.

Tuckman’s model explains that as the team develops maturity and ability, relationships establish, and the leader changes leadership style. Beginning with a directing style, moving through coaching, then participating, finishing delegating and almost detached. At this point the team may produce a successor leader and the previous leader can move on to develop a new team.

2. Identify the Feasible Alternative

The Group will be assessed for the following stages of teamwork development;

  1. Forming
  2. Storming
  3. Norming
  4. Performing

Each Phase is characterized by the following;

3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative
The assessment of the team will be performed through the administration of 32 question survey containing statements about teamwork. Each team Member scores each of the 32 questions using a scale of 1-5 (Almost never to Almost always) to indicate how often their team displays each indicated behavior.

4. Selection Criteria

Following the completion of survey questions from the Emerald 2017 group members and the classification of responses in accordance with Tuckman scoring model, the results are summarized within table 1.0 below;

Analysis and Comparison of the AlternativeFrom the above results, the current maturity of the group is regarded as PERFORMING based on a highest average score of 27.4.

In analysing the above results, the score may be influenced by the factors such as the sharing of scores with other team members, reducing willingness to provide negative feedback or low scores or overstatement of positive scores.

With these factors in mind and on the basis that the group is only 1 week old and is yet to face major challenges with respect to member interaction, work load and leadership, a more appropriate ranking of the group is that of the “Forming” stage (Rank 2).

Furthermore, the lowest score received for the group was for the Stage of “storming”. This is considered appropriate.

A statistical analysis of the teams survey results was not performed as it was not considered relevant to assessing the groups current development or stage of maturity.

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Whilst the survey has produced a result indicating that the group currently operates within the “PERFORMING” stage, based on reasoning stated under section 5 above, the Preferred alternative is considered to be the FORMING stage. 

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

It is recommended that the survey be repeated at week 10 and Week 20. It is also recommended that the survey be undertaken in a manner where respondents score are not disclosed to other team members to ensure that all scores truly reflect the opinions of the respondents.


  1. Team technology – Leadership using the Tuckman Model.                        Retrieved from  (http://http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/tuckman.htmlf)
  2. Scoring the The Tuckman Team Maturity Questionnaire Electronically. retrieved from (http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Documents/Electronic_Tuckman.pdf)
  3. Alan Chapman (2013) – Tuckman forming, storming performing model –  Retrieved from (http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm)