Over the next several weeks, this newsletter series will serve as your runway to the Traverse City Tendon Summit.

Each installment highlights key ideas across the Summit’s three major content areas:

1. Foundational Science

2. Evaluation and Diagnostics

3. Management and Decision Making

The goal is simple. We want everyone arriving in April with a shared platform of understanding so that the conversations can move quickly past the basics and into the deeper, more meaningful discussions that drive real progress. None of the ideas introduced here should be taken as settled science. These nuances invite debate and discussion, and that exchange is central to the purpose of the Summit.

In our previous installments, we’ve discussed the science underpinning tendon dynamics, responsiveness to loading, and the known facets of tendon disease states. We then ventured into the framework and implementation of evaluation tests and measures specific to Achilles tendinopathy. In this final content area, we are moving into treatment. This is where the rubber meets the road. We navigate the complicated interplay between science, preference, philosophy, and pragmatism. In order to do so effectively, establishing a clinical framework to operate within becomes essential. Scot Morrison has contributed extensively in this domain throughout his career. While his written works and his presentations vary dramatically in terms of content; a central tenet persists across his mental model: comprehensiveness, excellence, and accountability.

Management & Decision Making: Part I (Frameworks)

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Human cognition is limited, and real‑world environments magnify those limits. High performance settings overload attention, compress decision time, obscure feedback, and introduce organizational barriers that make accurate evaluation difficult. A structured framework compensates for these cognitive and contextual constraints and increases the likelihood that our interventions work as intended.

• Comprehensiveness prevents us from missing key determinants of performance. Clinicians must identify the relevant systems, domains, and constructs before narrowing focus. Without deliberate consideration of scope, important contributors remain unaccounted for and decisions are built on an incomplete understanding of the problem.

• Disciplined execution is required to ensure that our assessments and training actually target the qualities we aim to develop. Unintentional changes in tempo, rest, intent, or setup alter the stimulus and redirect adaptation away from the intended quality. Fidelity in execution is essential to maintain confidence in the stimulus provided.

• Accountability keeps our process aligned with observable reality. Evaluation systems verify whether our interventions are producing the intended impact at rates consistent with the scientific literature. Accountability is the mechanism that prevents ignorance, anchors decisions to measurable change, and maintains intellectual honesty throughout the process.

• Probabilistic reasoning and iterative approaches help us operate effectively under uncertainty. Bayesian updating provides the structure for adjusting beliefs as new evidence emerges, and agile iterations translate that logic into short cycles with continuous feedback. Together, they support intelligent adaptation when certainty is impossible.

The Challenge of Decision-Making In High-Performance Environments

Medical and high‑performance sport environments require sound judgment, yet the conditions themselves routinely test and expose the limits of human cognition. Time pressure, incomplete information, competing agendas, and unpredictable outcomes make it difficult to sustain the level of reasoning these roles demand [1,2].

Part of the challenge is structural. As described in work on bounded rationality, human decision‑making is limited by finite attention, working memory, and time. In fast‑moving environments, these constraints make exhaustive analysis impossible and push practitioners toward workable rather than fully optimized choices [3].

To reconcile cognitive limits and the demands of practice, people rely on heuristics: simple rules of thumb that allow quick, workable judgments by focusing on the most relevant cues. These shortcuts are essential in time‑pressured environments but come with predictable trade‑offs [4].

Heuristics support fast action but also create predictable cognitive biases that distort judgment. In applied sport settings, practitioners consistently report overconfidence, pressures to conform, and a tendency to interpret information in ways that reinforce existing narratives [1,2].

These patterns persist because decision‑making systems in sport rarely address them. Across studies, practitioners describe processes that are informal, intuitive, and weakly monitored, with limited access to formal training. Organizational structures for developing, tracking, or reviewing decisions are uncommon. In practice, support staff rely on experiential learning, ad‑hoc reflection, and team discussions rather than structured, evidence‑based frameworks [1,2].

Environmental constraints compound these issues. High‑performance settings are fast‑moving, information is incomplete, cues are ambiguous, and feedback is delayed or difficult to attribute. Practitioners describe these conditions as unpredictable and high pressure, with few validated indicators to guide decisions (especially in later‑stage rehabilitation and return‑to‑play scenarios) [1].

Fortunately, recent work highlights several leverage points associated with consistently high‑quality decision‑making: emotional intelligence, collaborative processes, organizational structure, and systematic reflection [2]. These findings highlight a clear opportunity: decision‑making can be improved through deliberate, structured, and evidence‑informed approaches rather than relying solely on intuition or accumulated experience.

Structure Matters: Disciplined Flexibility As A Guiding Process  

This is where a formalized decision-making framework becomes essential. Decision-science research, including the work of Gary Klein on naturalistic decision-making and Daniel Kahneman on cognitive bias, shows that practitioners are most flexible and effective when their thinking is guided by clear structure [1,2,4,1].

Structure does not mean limitation. A successful framework should guardrail us from the predictable gaps in our cognitive processes while remaining responsive to changing circumstances. Maintaining a disciplined yet flexible model allows practitioners to organize information, clarify their reasoning, and make decisions that stay adaptable as new evidence or contextual demands emerge [1,2].

Scot Morrison is an ideal presenter for this topic. Although he does not write explicitly about decision‑making frameworks, his work consistently emphasizes the value of appropriate scaffolding to support clinical and performance reasoning. He highlights the importance of understanding scope, being deliberate in the selection and implementation of methods, and monitoring key variables over time to guide timely adjustments. These principles form the backbone of disciplined flexibility and provide the structure needed to make decisions that are both adaptive and accountable.

The sections that follow build on these insights to outline a practical, evidence-informed decision-making framework organized around three core components: Comprehensiveness, Excellence, and Accountability. These components integrate the key elements identified across the Wilson studies, including emotional intelligence, experiential knowledge, team processes, and organizational structure, and translate them into actionable strategies for improving decision-making in high-stakes performance environments.

Comprehensiveness

Rehabilitation and performance are often treated as if they unfold within a single system. Scot has contributed to literature combating this very oversimplification [5,6,7]. Every meaningful output in sport emerges from the coordinated expression of multiple interacting systems. We must recognize that athletes present with contributions from multiple physiological and psychological systems, each impacted to varying extents across differing timescales. 

An optimized, evidence‑based loading program can successfully rehabilitate a pathological tendon and still fail to restore performance if the broader systems are ignored.

But the complexity does not stop at the system level. Once we zoom in on any single domain, the structure becomes even more layered.

“Strength” is a useful example. What appears to be a single quality separates into multiple, distinct constructs. Maximal force capacity reflects the highest force an athlete can produce and is influenced by joint angle, contraction type, and muscle architecture [8,9]. Strength endurance represents a separate construct, describing the ability to sustain or repeat force production over time, and its interpretation depends heavily on whether absolute or relative endurance is tested [10].

Further, neither quality can be evaluated in a vacuum. Rate of force development (RFD) and absolute force expression depend on the time available, and the chosen time window determines which neuromuscular qualities appear. These constraints apply equally to training, where temporal windows, load selection, contraction strategy, and modeling approach determine which qualities are actually stressed and developed across RFD, force-velocity, and strength-endurance profiles [11,12,9,13,14].

This is not meant to be a pedantic exercise in semantics. The point is that there is no single, context‑free definition of “strength” that is universally meaningful. What counts as strength depends entirely on the task, the time available for force expression, and the specific constraints of the competitive environment. Importantly for this newsletter, even within a single domain, small methodological decisions can produce large discrepancies in the outcomes observed.

Exercise selection, volume, frequency, and intensity are obvious levers to manipulate. However, even when these are held constant, altering repetition time constraints, rest intervals, or session duration can place neuromuscular and cardiopulmonary systems under very different levels of stress

A session can quickly change from biasing absolute strength to “explosive” power if we change how the total volume is administered and provide specific cuing for rapid force production. A strength‑focused session can become strength‑endurance or cardiac‑output training simply by adjusting work:rest ratios and anchoring efforts to heart‑rate recovery.

The point is that no decision should be random or made without deliberate consideration.

This is the deeper meaning of comprehensiveness.

It is not about measuring everything. It is about recognizing the hierarchical structure of performance:

• Systems (musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, cardiopulmonary, perceptual‑cognitive, psychological)

• Domains within systems (e.g., within neuromuscular: strength, coordination, motor control)

• Constructs within domains (e.g., within strength: maximal force, strength endurance, time‑dependent force characteristics)

• Measurement choices within constructs (isometric vs dynamic, early vs late time windows, load‑specific endurance)

Each level contains its own sources of variability, its own determinants, and its own decision‑making implications. Comprehensiveness is the discipline of holding this structure in mind long enough to avoid collapsing the problem too early.

Task analysis is the mechanism that makes this structure actionable. By examining the specific tasks an athlete must perform, clinicians identify which systems, domains, and constructs actually matter. This prevents the common error of mistaking a local impairment for a global limitation or assuming that a single test captures the complexity of a performance requirement [15,16].

Comprehensiveness is not about expanding scope endlessly but about ensuring scope is appropriate: wide enough to capture true determinants of performance and narrow enough to remain operational. Clinicians need to be deliberate, efficient, and context specific in their reasoning rather than relying on generic assumptions about what should matter.

In rehabilitation and performance, many roads lead to Rome. The specific intervention matters less than the evidence-based framework guiding its selection. 

Comprehensiveness underpins excellence and accountability. Without a clear understanding of the relevant systems, domains, and constructs driving performance, rehabilitation efforts fall short. A stiff tendon is meaningless if broader readiness demands are not addressed. 

Excellence

If comprehensiveness helps us understand what matters, excellence determines whether our interventions actually produce the outcomes we intend. Excellence is not a property of a program but a behavior. It is the disciplined execution of the procedures, constraints, and standards that turn a theoretically sound plan into a meaningful result. A perfect program implemented inconsistently will fail. A simple program implemented with clarity, intention, and consistency can succeed.

Excellence requires controlling execution both within and between sessions. Within a session, fidelity ensures the exercise actually trains the intended qualities; changes in tempo, intent, rest, or movement strategy alter the physiological demands and therefore the stimulus. Across sessions, consistency ensures the stimulus is comparable over time. Progression becomes uninterpretable if athlete outputs are not expressed in the same language. Clinicians cannot accurately know whether to increase, maintain, or reduce the load with inconsistent feedback. Fidelity delivers the right stimulus today; consistency makes that stimulus meaningful tomorrow.

Sustaining that level of execution quality and consistency requires clinicians to become subject matter experts in the domain of exercise implementation. Research shows that global force expression and tendon adaptation both rely on the context in which load is applied [8–14, 24, 25, 17–19, 26]. These findings do not imply that the body demands extreme precision or that falling outside an “optimized” range eliminates benefit. Adaptation occurs along continuums, not strict thresholds. However, clinicians cannot design effective implementation parameters from a position of ignorance. Approximating known standards improves the likelihood that the intended qualities are trained, and doing so requires a deep and disciplined understanding of the parameters that shape the training effect.

Adhering to strict and consistent criteria ensures that the training stimulus is coherent, interpretable, and aligned with the qualities it is meant to develop. Excellence is the discipline that protects clinicians from mistaking activity for adaptation and from assuming that a plan on paper is the same as a stimulus in practice.

Accountability

How can clinicians determine whether a true change has occurred?

If comprehensiveness clarifies what matters and excellence determines how well we execute it, accountability is the discipline that ensures our work has impact. Accountability is the structure that forces us to verify whether our interventions are producing the effects we believe they are. Ignorance is not bliss. It is a liability. Deliberate, explicit, and repeatable methods of measuring progress anchor our process to our predetermined goals rather than assumptions or impressions [20].

In this framework, accountability relies heavily on probabilistic thinking. Bayesian reasoning provides a cognitive structure for decision making under uncertainty by continually updating the probability of a hypothesis as new evidence becomes available [21]. A plan begins as a prior belief about what is likely to help. Every intervention generates a response. Every response becomes data. Each new observation serves as an updated input that reshapes the probability of what is true.

This process allows clinicians to remain responsive to their environments and to exercise the level of flexibility required for appropriate individualization. Uncertainty is not a flaw in the process. It is an unavoidable feature of real life that must be accounted for. Consistently evaluating and updating our priors ensures that accountability is not a retrospective judgment but an ongoing process of course correction.

Operationalizing this is challenging, especially when meaningful change in key qualities may not appear for weeks. Once again, deep knowledge becomes essential. Understanding the physiological determinants of performance, along with the expected timelines for their adaptation, allows clinicians to set appropriate expectations for when meaningful signals should emerge.

For example, alterations in neuromuscular qualities underpinning rate of force development and explosive attributes are driven largely by neural adaptations. Rapid changes in motor unit recruitment behavior and early phase force production strategies can show meaningful improvement within the first several weeks of targeted training [24,25]. In contrast, muscular hypertrophy (which impacts maximal strength and late phase RFD to a greater extent) tends to emerge closer to the three to four week mark and continues to accumulate over longer periods [25]. Tendon specific metrics are even more varied. In mid‑portion Achilles tendinopathy, pain and function often improve within two to four weeks. However, measurable structural remodeling on imaging may lag behind or remain subtle unless exceeding months of time [26].

Knowing this, clinicians should carefully consider their comprehensive list of requirements and solicit feedback on those qualities at intervals matching adaptation timelines. Failure to calibrate here risks abandoning effective methods before the relevant systems have had time to respond, or persisting with ineffective ones long after their useful window has closed

Pausing to reflect on outcomes in an intellectually humble way prevents premature closure of thought, encourages consideration of alternative explanations, and helps keep complexity from overwhelming the process [21,27]. These reflection points allow clinicians to assess whether the system is behaving as expected and to decide whether to reinforce, refine, or redirect their plan. They are the cognitive safeguards that keep accountability active rather than retrospective.

Without clear thresholds, stable measurement conditions, and repeatable methods, clinicians cannot distinguish real adaptation from noise [20]. Accountability is not about defending decisions. It is about updating them. It is the discipline that ensures clinicians remain aligned with the athlete’s needs, the data they collect, and the principles that govern adaptive reasoning. It is the safeguard that prevents drift, the engine that drives iteration, and the cognitive stance that keeps the entire framework honest.

Conclusion

High performance environments expose the limits of human cognition. Time pressure, incomplete information, shifting constraints, and the inherent noise of biological systems make it easy for reasoning to drift and for decisions to detach from reality. The framework outlined here provides a way to counter those forces. Comprehensiveness ensures that clinicians understand the full landscape of interacting systems before narrowing their focus. Excellence ensures that the interventions chosen are executed with the fidelity required to create the adaptations they are intended to produce. Accountability ensures that clinicians measure those adaptations honestly, update their beliefs as evidence accumulates, and remain responsive to the athlete rather than attached to their assumptions. 

Together, these components create a disciplined and adaptive process that can navigate the complexity, uncertainty, and cognitive constraints that define real‑world practice. They support clear thinking, deliberate action, and intelligent adjustment, which are the qualities that high‑stakes environments demand.

Looking Ahead

Newsletter 7 will shift our focus from high‑level frameworks to the practical application of these ideas in healthy tendons. Jarred Boyd is the ideal presenter to lead this discussion. He consistently bridges philosophy and practicality, and he excels at breaking down athletic demands in an ecologically valid way. He identifies the components that matter, links them to specific tissue capacities, and translates those capacities into actionable training decisions.

Our goal is to support his presentation by expanding on task analysis and performance enhancement within a sporting context. We will examine how the demands of sport shape the qualities that must be developed, how those qualities emerge from interacting systems, and how clinicians can design training that supports the realities of the athlete’s environment.

- Research review written by: Jason Eure, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS

*If you plan to attend the Summit, but haven't yet registered, we recommend doing so soon—we're limited to 40 attendees.

Miss a previous edition? Find our archive here.

Reference List 

[1] Wilson PJ, Kiely J. Developing decision-making expertise in professional sports staff: What we can learn from the Good Judgement Project. Sports Med Open. 2023 Oct 25;9(1):100. doi:10.1186/s40798-023-00629-w. PMID:37878189; PMCID:PMC10600061.

[2] Wilson PJ, Roe G, Kiely J. How do they decide? Performance support staff perceptions of decision-making in elite-sport environments. J Strength Cond Res. 2025 Feb 1;39(2):192-199. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004989. Epub 2024 Dec 24. PMID:39714248.

[3] Wilson PJ, Roe G, Kiely J. Decisions, decisions, decisions: A qualitative exploration of decision-making in performance support leaders. Front Sports Act Living. 2025;7. doi:10.3389/fspor.2025.1664191.

[4] Yung KK, Ardern CL, Serpiello FR, Robertson S. Judgement and decision making in clinical and return-to-sports decision making: A narrative review. Sports Med. 2024 Aug;54(8):2005-2017. doi:10.1007/s40279-024-02054-9. Epub 2024 Jun 26. PMID:38922556; PMCID:PMC11329672.

[5] Morrison S, Ward P, duManoir GR. Energy system development and load management through the rehabilitation and return to play process. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Aug;12(4):697-710. PMID:28900575; PMCID:PMC5534159.

[6] Larson D, Vu V, Ness BM, Wellsandt E, Morrison S. A multi-systems approach to human movement after ACL reconstruction: The musculoskeletal system. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2021 Dec 1;17(1):27-46. doi:10.26603/001c.29456. PMID:35237463; PMCID:PMC8856762.

[7] Seehafer L, Morrison S, Severin R, Ness BM. A multi-systems approach to human movement after ACL reconstruction: The cardiopulmonary system. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2021 Dec 1;17(1):60-73. doi:10.26603/001c.29451. PMID:35024206; PMCID:PMC8720251.

[8] Buckthorpe M, Roi GS. The time has come to incorporate a greater focus on rate of force development training in the sports injury rehabilitation process. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2018 Jan 10;7(3):435-441. doi:10.11138/mltj/2017.7.3.435. PMID:29387636; PMCID:PMC5774916.

[9] Ripley NJ, Fahey J, Guppy S, Comfort P. Comparisons between different methods of calculating dynamic strength index: Effect on training recommendations. PLoS One. 2025;20(9):e0331519. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331519.

[10] Hammert WB, Yamada Y, Kataoka R, Song JS, Spitz RW, Wong V, Seffrin A, Loenneke JP. Changes in absolute and relative muscular endurance after resistance training: A review of the literature with considerations for future research. J Strength Cond Res. 2025 Apr 1;39(4):474-491. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000005084. PMID:40153563.

[11] Liu Y, et al. Force vs. impulse: Assessing the applicability of dynamic strength indices in individualized training recommendations. Biol Sport. 2026. [Preprint]. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2026.157994.

[12] Scheller C, et al. The relationship between components of the dynamic strength index and the slope of the force-velocity profile in the loaded countermovement jump in resistance-trained males and females. Int J Strength Cond. 2023;3(1). doi:10.47206/ijsc.v3i1.199.

[13] Suchomel TJ, Sole CJ, Bellon CR, Stone MH. Dynamic strength index: Relationships with common performance variables and contextualization of training recommendations. J Hum Kinet. 2020 Aug 31;74:59-70. doi:10.2478/hukin-2020-0014. PMID:33312276; PMCID:PMC7706654.

[14] Mitter B, Csapo R, Bauer P, Tschan H. Reproducibility of strength performance and strength-endurance profiles: A test-retest study. PLoS One. 2022 May 5;17(5):e0268074. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268074. PMID:35511896; PMCID:PMC9070879.

[15] Pino-Ortega J, Rojas-Valverde D, Gómez-Carmona CD, Rico-González M. Training design, performance analysis, and talent identification: A systematic review about the most relevant variables through principal component analysis in soccer, basketball, and rugby. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 5;18(5):2642. doi:10.3390/ijerph18052642. PMID:33807971; PMCID:PMC7967544.

[16[ Clubb J, Allen SV, Yung KK. Selection of key performance indicators for your sport and program: Proposing a complementary process-driven approach. Strength Cond J. 2023;46(1):90-97. doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000813.

[17] Morrison S, Cook J. Putting “heavy” into heavy slow resistance. Sports Med. 2022 Jun;52(6):1219-1222. doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01641-y. Epub 2022 Jan 27. PMID:35084703; PMCID:PMC9124646.

[18] Domroes T, Weidlich K, Bohm S, Mersmann F, Arampatzis A. Personalized tendon loading reduces muscle-tendon imbalances in male adolescent elite athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2024 Jan;34(1):e14555. doi:10.1111/sms.14555. PMID:38268075.

[19] Domroes T, Weidlich K, Bohm S, Mersmann F, Arampatzis A. A personalized muscle-tendon assessment and exercise prescription concept reduces muscle-tendon imbalances in female adolescent athletes. Sports Med Open. 2025 Feb 7;11(1):14. doi:10.1186/s40798-025-00817-w. PMID:39920510; PMCID:PMC11805736.

[20] Ward P, Morrison S, Bullock G. Did a true change occur? Improving analytical decisions for serial performance testing in sport. 2025. [Preprint]. doi:10.1101/2025.09.22.25336149.

[21] Quintela-Del-Río A, Rodríguez-Romero B, Robles-García V, Arias-Rodríguez P, Cudeiro-Mazaira J, Martínez-Rodríguez A. Bayesian methods in the field of rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Jun;98(6):516-520. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000001124. PMID:30601162.

[22] Saleh HH, et al. Agile management in healthcare: Improving patient outcomes through flexibility and responsiveness. J Ecohumanism. 2024;3(5):633-649. doi:10.62754/joe.v3i5.3928.

[23] Schmidt HG, Mamede S. Improving diagnostic decision support through deliberate reflection: A proposal. Diagnosis (Berl). 2022 Aug 25;10(1):38-42. doi:10.1515/dx-2022-0062. PMID:36000188.

[24] Blazevich AJ, Wilson CJ, Alcaraz PE, Rubio-Arias JA. Effects of resistance training movement pattern and velocity on isometric muscular rate of force development: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. Sports Med. 2020 May;50(5):943-963. doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01239-x. PMID:32034703.

[25] Maffiuletti NA, Aagaard P, Blazevich AJ, Folland J, Tillin N, Duchateau J. Rate of force development: Physiological and methodological considerations. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016 Jun;116(6):1091-1116. doi:10.1007/s00421-016-3346-6. Epub 2016 Mar 3. PMID:26941023; PMCID:PMC4875063.

[26] Murphy M, Travers M, Gibson W, Chivers P, Debenham J, Docking S, Rio E. Rate of improvement of pain and function in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy with loading protocols: A systematic review and longitudinal meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018 Aug;48(8):1875-1891. doi:10.1007/s40279-018-0932-2. PMID:29766442.

[27] Costa N, Olson R, Dillon M, Mescouto K, Butler P, Forbes R, Setchell J. Navigating uncertainty in low back pain care through an ethic of openness: Learnings from a post-critical analysis. Health (London). 2025 Sep;29(5):609-632. doi:10.1177/13634593241310383. Epub 2025 Mar 13. PMID:40080417; PMCID:PMC12357978.