Effective team science requires navigating the complex dynamics through which diverse individuals align, collaborate, and innovate. Existing literature on team science provides generalized frameworks for transdisciplinary research teams but lacks specific checkpoints for go/no go decisions. This work aims to fill that gap by introducing a new conceptual, self‑assessment framework designed to help interdisciplinary teams understand the developmental stages that support or hinder collective scientific productivity, the “Hierarchy of Team Science Success and Failure.” The model assumes that teams are dynamic mechanisms, composed of individuals embedded within broader networks, and members may join or leave at any time—necessitating adaptable structures and communication pathways. The model includes two peaks: (1) the formation of a functional and efficient team and (2) generating novel and innovative scientific outcomes. Failure in reaching Peak 1 could result in total team failure. Failure in reaching Peak 2 could still result in a functional team, but integrative and novel science is unlikely to occur, and future partnership with the group may be jeopardized.

Foundational communication is at the base of the hierarchy, enabling the emergence of Drivers and Leaders, clarification of Roles and Responsibilities, and formation of a Shared Purpose. When these components are established, teams can reach Peak 1, characterized by the production of ideas and outputs around shared goals. For example, writing a grant proposal requires making these components explicit to achieve peak 1. However, reaching Peak 2 is not required for grant submission. Instead, novelty requires moving beyond the initial phase in Peak 1. Unfortunately, progress often stalls in the “Groan Zone,” or storming phase, a stage where team members’ differing needs and priorities collide. Navigating this zone requires deliberate Compromise, allowing teams to enact shared goals through diplomacy and mutual adjustment.

Teams that successfully move beyond the Groan Zone can achieve Interdisciplinary Knowledge Integration, enabling them to reach Peak 2. This is where innovation emerges from the synthesis of diverse expertise. In the previous example of a grant writing process, this would occur post-award and into the research phase, as teams try to integrate ideas toward novelty. This hierarchical model highlights key points of vulnerability and opportunity within team development processes and provides a practical structure for diagnosing challenges and guiding targeted interventions. By mapping how teams ascend (or falter) across these stages, the model offers a scalable tool to strengthen collaborative capacity within translational, interdisciplinary, and cross-sector scientific environments. Future work includes creating a formal self-assessment tool for teams that map to possible interventions.

Representing an early-stage model, presenters hope to use this poster to engage in conversation, seeking diverse researcher input from both team science theory and practice.