Teams That Change Together: What Tuckman Tells Us About the Arbennek INT 

Forming. Storming. Norming. Performing. Adjourning. And then what? 

Most people who’ve ever been part of a team or taken part in any team development have come across Tuckman’s stages of group development. 

First described in 1965, his theory outlines the emotional and structural journey teams go through – from initial optimism and confusion, through conflict, into cohesion, high performance, and, eventually, dissolution or transition. 

It’s a classic model. But rarely do we see it applied in the middle of real-time innovation in health and care. That’s what makes the Arbennek INT evaluation so valuable. 

In Arbennek Primary Care Network (PCN), an Integrated Neighbourhood Team (INT) has grown around a shared commitment to proactive, relational, community-based care. Brave AI helped by identifying high-risk patients, but what’s more interesting is how the team itself developed. 

Because when we looked closely, Tuckman was everywhere. 

Stage 1: Forming 

Hope, confusion, goodwill 

The Arbennek INT didn’t arrive fully formed. It began as an idea – a monthly meeting. A chance to bring people together. Early meetings were large, open-ended, and, in the words of one participant, 

“nebulous.”1 

“We were like, ‘What’s all this about? Where is this going to go?’”2 

People weren’t sure what they were being invited into. But they came anyway. That early willingness to explore was key. It was the space Brave AI entered, giving form to the formless by focusing on a shared cohort of patients. 

One person described it beautifully: 

“Brave scores gave us a reason to be in the room together.”3 

Stage 2: Storming 

Disagreement, discomfort, growing pains 

With purpose came growing pains. 

Meetings ballooned. Roles blurred. Some worried that non-clinical staff were being asked to take on responsibilities they weren’t trained for. Others weren’t sure how the INT fit into the bigger NHS picture. Was it replacing something? Overlapping? Competing? 

“We haven’t reached the black and white aspect of where our roles and responsibilities lie.”4 

And yet, storming didn’t break the team. It forged it. Difficult questions were asked. Gaps in clinical coverage were acknowledged. And a new kind of trust began to build, rooted not in hierarchy, but in honesty and shared intent. 

Stage 3: Norming 

Trust, rhythm, relational glue 

As the meetings continued, something shifted. 

People started to understand how they could work together and who they could rely on. A VCSE representative spoke of knowing who to catch after the meeting to follow up. A GP talked about collaborative visits that addressed problems more holistically than a dozen separate appointments ever could. 

“We started having these meetings… and we sorted out half a dozen things in one visit. That’s when it clicked.”5 

The evaluation notes that leadership in this stage became less about authority and more about facilitation. It was no longer “who’s in charge?” but “how do we keep this going?” The team developed norms not from policy, but from practice. 

Stage 4: Performing 

Confidence, clarity, momentum 

This stage is still emerging but the signs are strong. 

Attendance is high. The group is taking on increasingly complex challenges. People are beginning to describe the INT as essential to how they work, not an optional extra. 

“This way of working is the only thing that can save the NHS. We have to treat patients differently.”6 

At the same time, there’s a realistic understanding of what it takes to keep performing. The team is calling for more support for meso-level clinicians, clearer communication frameworks, and structured leadership development. Performing doesn’t mean “everything’s fixed.” It means the team knows what it needs and isn’t afraid to ask. 

Stage 5: Adjourning 

Reflections, transitions, and future questions 

Interestingly, “adjourning” – the final stage – wasn’t a strong theme in the data. Why? Because the team doesn’t wantisn’t ready to stop. 

Some individual roles are time-limited, particularly in the VCSE sector. But the INT itself is viewed as a continuous need. As one local authority stakeholder put it: 

“I don’t think there can be an endpoint. They just keep an eye. They’re tracking these patients.”7 

The INT isn’t a project. It’s becoming an operating principle. 

What can Tuckman teach us? 

The evaluation shows us that applying Tuckman’s model isn’t just useful retrospectively — it can actually help teams navigate change as it happens. If leaders understand what “storming” looks like, they can design with it in mind. If they know “norming” takes time, they can invest in it. 

Most importantly, it reminds us that team development is a human process. AI might identify the risk. Policy might fund the meeting. But it’s people who do the work — building trust, resolving tension, creating momentum. 

The real innovation in Arbennek wasn’t a tool or a template. It was a team. 

And that’s what makes this model not only worth studying, but worth supporting. 

 

To read the full report on Arbennek – Visit our Hub Page 

 

Footnotes 

1. Report page 14 – direct quote from participant describing early INT meetings as “fairly nebulous… always moving, shifting, amoebic.” 

1. Report page 14 – direct quote from an INT participant recalling early uncertainty before Brave AI was introduced. 

1. Report page 14 – compressed summary drawn from participant reflections on Brave AI providing structure and focus to early meetings. 

1. Report page 18 – direct quote from a senior clinician on the unresolved clarity around roles and responsibilities in the INT. 

1. Report page 23 – compressed quote combining two adjacent sentences about a joint visit with a district nurse. 

1. Report page 24 – compressed quote from a GP practice manager expressing belief in the integrated model as the way forward. 

1. Report page 24 – direct quote from a local authority stakeholder on the ongoing nature of the INT and tracking of patients.