Project Charter: [Project name]
Project charter: the short document that formally authorises a project,
names the sponsor and the project manager, and sets the boundaries the
project works within: purpose, measurable objectives, high-level scope
and requirements, summary milestones and budget, key stakeholders, the
project manager's authority levels, assumptions, constraints, top risks,
and the criteria for closing or stopping the project. The content is
aligned with the project charter concept in A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), Eighth Edition (PMI,
November 2025) and with the pre-project and initiating practices of
ISO 21502:2020 (Guidance on project management). It works for
predictive, agile and hybrid projects. Replace every [bracketed] value
and every row marked Example.
Document control
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Document ID | [PC-PROJECT-001] |
| Project name | [Project name] |
| Project code | [PRJ-NNNN] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / In review / Approved / Superseded / Closed] |
| Sponsor | [Name, role] |
| Project manager | [Name, role] |
| Owner of this document | [Sponsor; drafted by the project manager] |
| Business case reference | [BC-NNN, version, approval date] |
| Portfolio or programme | [Portfolio or programme name, or "Standalone"] |
| Delivery approach | [Predictive / Agile / Hybrid] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Internal / Confidential] |
Approvals
| Role | Name | Decision | Signature or approval reference | Date |
|---|
| Sponsor | [Name] | [Approved / Approved with conditions / Rejected] | [Reference] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Portfolio board or investment committee | [Name] | [Decision] | [Minutes reference] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Project manager (acceptance of role and authority) | [Name] | Accepted | [Reference] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Finance business partner | [Name] | [Budget confirmed] | [Reference] | YYYY-MM-DD |
Revision history
| Version | Date | Author | Change | Approved by |
|---|
| 0.1 (Example) | YYYY-MM-DD | [Project manager] | First draft from approved business case | n/a |
| 1.0 (Example) | YYYY-MM-DD | [Project manager] | Approved at portfolio board | [Sponsor] |
| 1.1 (Example) | YYYY-MM-DD | [Project manager] | Milestone M4 moved by 3 weeks under CR-007 | [Sponsor] |
Contents
1. Purpose and justification
Problem or opportunity: [What is wrong today, or what opportunity
exists, and who is affected.]
Why now: [The trigger: regulation, contract end, customer demand,
strategy decision.]
Link to strategy: [Strategic objective or portfolio theme this project
serves.]
Example: Harbourline Freight Ltd. (a fictional company) runs its three
warehouses on a warehouse management system whose vendor support ends on
YYYY-MM-DD. Order picking takes 14 minutes per order on average, against
9 minutes at competitors that use guided picking. The approved business
case BC-112 recommends replacing the system with a cloud warehouse
management service before support ends, with an expected payback of 3.2
years.
2. Objectives and success criteria
| ID | Objective | Measure | Baseline | Target | By when | Confirmed by |
|---|
| OBJ-01 (Example) | Replace the warehouse system before support ends | All 3 sites live on the new system | 0 of 3 | 3 of 3 | YYYY-MM-DD | Operations director |
| OBJ-02 (Example) | Reduce order picking time | Average minutes per order (system report) | 14.0 | 9.5 | 3 months after last go-live | Head of logistics |
| OBJ-03 (Example) | Keep service during cutover | Orders shipped on time during each cutover week | 97% | at least 95% | Each go-live | Customer service lead |
| [OBJ-NN] | [Objective] | [Measure] | [Baseline] | [Target] | [Date] | [Role] |
Benefits that arise after closure (for example lower labour cost per
order) are tracked in the benefits realisation plan
(project/benefits-realization-plan), not as charter success criteria.
3. High-level scope
| In scope | Out of scope |
|---|
| Example: Warehouse management for the three existing sites | Example: Transport management and route planning |
| Example: Integration with the existing ERP for orders and stock | Example: Replacement of the ERP |
| Example: Data migration of open orders, stock and locations | Example: Migration of closed orders older than 2 years (archived read-only) |
| Example: Training of warehouse staff and supervisors | Example: Changes to warehouse building layout |
| [In scope item] | [Out of scope item] |
4. High-level requirements
| ID | Requirement | Type | Source | Priority |
|---|
| HLR-01 (Example) | Pickers receive guided picking instructions on handheld devices | Functional | Business case BC-112 | Must |
| HLR-02 (Example) | Stock levels synchronise with the ERP within 5 minutes | Interface | Finance and sales | Must |
| HLR-03 (Example) | The service is available 06:00 to 23:00 on working days with at least 99.5% availability | Non-functional | Operations | Must |
| HLR-04 (Example) | Personal data of staff is processed only in the regions approved by the data protection officer | Compliance | Data protection officer | Must |
| HLR-05 (Example) | Supervisors can produce the daily productivity report without IT help | Functional | Site managers | Should |
| [HLR-NN] | [Requirement] | [Type] | [Source] | [Must / Should / Could] |
5. Deliverables and summary milestones
| ID | Deliverable | Acceptance owner |
|---|
| DEL-01 (Example) | Selected and contracted warehouse management service | Procurement lead |
| DEL-02 (Example) | Configured and integrated solution, tested end to end | Operations director |
| DEL-03 (Example) | Migrated data, reconciled per site | Finance controller |
| DEL-04 (Example) | Trained staff and updated operating procedures | Head of logistics |
| DEL-05 (Example) | Live operation at three sites with hypercare completed | Operations director |
| ID | Milestone | Target date | Gate or decision |
|---|
| M1 (Example) | Charter approved, project initiated | YYYY-MM-DD | Portfolio board |
| M2 (Example) | Vendor selected and contract signed | YYYY-MM-DD | Sponsor |
| M3 (Example) | Solution design approved | YYYY-MM-DD | Steering committee |
| M4 (Example) | Pilot site live | YYYY-MM-DD | Go-live readiness review |
| M5 (Example) | All sites live | YYYY-MM-DD | Go-live readiness review |
| M6 (Example) | Project closed | YYYY-MM-DD | Sponsor (section 11) |
6. Summary budget and resources
| Item | Estimate (Example, EUR) | Basis |
|---|
| Internal staff time | 420,000 | 6 FTE for 14 months, internal day rates |
| Software subscription (project period) | 180,000 | Vendor quotes, 3 sites |
| Implementation partner | 260,000 | Fixed price for configuration and integration |
| Handheld devices and network upgrades | 60,000 | 120 devices, 3 sites |
| Training and change management | 30,000 | Train-the-trainer model |
| Subtotal | 950,000 | |
| Contingency (10%, held by the project manager per section 8) | 95,000 | Known risks in section 10 |
| Authorised project budget | 1,045,000 | Approved by portfolio board |
| Management reserve (held by the sponsor, outside the project budget) | 50,000 | Unknown risks |
| Resource | Quantity | Source | Committed by |
|---|
| Project manager (Example) | 1 FTE | PMO | Head of PMO |
| Solution architect (Example) | 0.5 FTE | IT architecture | CIO |
| Site super-users (Example) | 2 per site, 20% time | Operations | Operations director |
| [Role] | [Quantity] | [Team] | [Name] |
7. Key stakeholders and governance
| Stakeholder | Role in the project | Main interest | Influence | Engagement approach |
|---|
| Operations director (Example) | Sponsor | Continuity of warehouse service | High | Chairs steering committee |
| Head of logistics (Example) | Senior user | Picking productivity | High | Steering member, accepts DEL-04 |
| CIO (Example) | Senior supplier (internal) | Integration, security | High | Steering member |
| Warehouse staff representatives (Example) | Users | Workload, training | Medium | Monthly briefing, pilot feedback |
| Data protection officer (Example) | Reviewer | Staff personal data | Medium | Consulted before M3 |
| [Stakeholder] | [Role] | [Interest] | [High / Medium / Low] | [Approach] |
| Body | Members | Decides | Meets |
|---|
| Portfolio board (Example) | Executive team | Charter approval, budget above the authorised total, stop or continue | Quarterly and at exceptions |
| Steering committee (Example) | Sponsor, head of logistics, CIO, finance | Milestone gates, changes beyond PM authority, top risks | Monthly |
| Project manager (Example) | Project manager | Day-to-day decisions within section 8 | Weekly team meeting |
8. Project manager authority levels
| Area | Project manager decides alone | Sponsor approval needed | Steering committee or board |
|---|
| Budget (Example) | Spend within approved line items; use of contingency up to EUR 20,000 per change | Contingency use above EUR 20,000 per change, up to the contingency total | Any increase of the authorised budget (portfolio board) |
| Schedule (Example) | Moves of internal tasks that do not change a milestone | Milestone moves up to 2 weeks | Milestone moves beyond 2 weeks, or any move of M5 |
| Scope (Example) | Clarifications within the in-scope list | Changes to Should or Could requirements | Changes to Must requirements or the out-of-scope list |
| Staffing (Example) | Assigning work within the committed team | Requesting extra internal staff | New external contracts above EUR 50,000 |
| Technical decisions (Example) | Within the approved solution design | Deviations from the design that affect another system | Deviations from architecture or security policy |
| Vendor management (Example) | Day-to-day direction of the implementation partner | Contract change notices within budget | Contract value changes |
| [Area] | [Limit] | [Limit] | [Limit] |
Escalation route: project manager, then sponsor, then steering committee,
then portfolio board. A decision outside these limits is escalated within
[2] working days.
9. Assumptions, constraints and dependencies
| ID | Type | Statement | Owner | Confirm by |
|---|
| AS-01 (Example) | Assumption | Sites can release two super-users each at 20% of their time | Operations director | M2 |
| AS-02 (Example) | Assumption | The ERP interface specification is current | CIO | M3 |
| CO-01 (Example) | Constraint | All sites live before vendor support of the old system ends on YYYY-MM-DD | Sponsor | Fixed |
| CO-02 (Example) | Constraint | No go-live in the peak season weeks [week numbers] | Head of logistics | Fixed |
| DP-01 (Example) | Dependency | Network upgrade at site 2 by the facilities project | Facilities manager | M3 |
| [ID] | [Type] | [Statement] | [Owner] | [Date or milestone] |
10. High-level risks
| ID | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Response | Owner |
|---|
| R-01 (Example) | Data quality in the old system delays migration | High | High | Data profiling in month 1; cleansing workstream | Data migration lead |
| R-02 (Example) | Staff resistance to handheld guided picking | Medium | High | Early involvement of staff representatives; pilot site first | Head of logistics |
| R-03 (Example) | ERP integration effort underestimated | Medium | Medium | Integration proof of concept before M3 | Solution architect |
| R-04 (Example) | Old system fails before replacement | Low | High | Extended support quote kept as fallback | CIO |
| [R-NN] | [Risk] | [L / M / H] | [L / M / H] | [Response] | [Owner] |
11. Exit and approval criteria
Closure criteria (all must be met):
| ID | Criterion | Evidence | Approver |
|---|
| EX-01 (Example) | OBJ-01 and OBJ-03 achieved | Go-live reports per site | Operations director |
| EX-02 (Example) | All Must requirements (HLR-01 to HLR-04) accepted | Signed acceptance test reports | Steering committee |
| EX-03 (Example) | Hypercare complete with no open severity 1 or 2 incidents | Service desk report | CIO |
| EX-04 (Example) | Handover to operations and support signed | Operations handover document | Head of logistics |
| EX-05 (Example) | Lessons learned recorded and contracts closed | Closure report (project/project-closure-report) | Sponsor |
Early termination triggers (any one leads to a stop-or-continue decision
by the portfolio board):
- Example: Forecast cost at completion exceeds the authorised budget by
more than 15%.
- Example: M4 (pilot site live) forecast later than [date], which would
put the support-end constraint CO-01 at risk.
- Example: The business case no longer shows a positive net value after
re-assessment.
OBJ-02 (picking time) is measured 3 months after the last go-live; if the
project closes earlier, the sponsor confirms who measures it and reports
the result through the benefits realisation plan.
12. Reporting and change control
| Item | Approach |
|---|
| Status reporting | [Example: Monthly steering report (project/steering-committee-report), weekly highlight note to the sponsor] |
| Exception reporting | [Example: Immediate report to the sponsor when a forecast breaches a limit in section 8] |
| Change control | [Example: Changes follow project/change-control; approval level per section 8] |
| Communication | [Example: Communication plan (project/communication-plan) issued by M2] |
| Next documents | [Project management plan, stakeholder register, RAID log, schedule] |
13. Authorisation
By approving this charter, the sponsor authorises the project
[Project name] to start, assigns [Project manager] as project manager,
and authorises the use of the resources in section 6 within the
authority levels in section 8.
| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
|---|
| Sponsor | [Name] | [Signature] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Project manager | [Name] | [Signature] | YYYY-MM-DD |
14. Glossary and references
| Term | Meaning in this charter |
|---|
| Sponsor | The executive accountable for the project and its business case |
| Contingency | Budget held by the project for identified risks, used within section 8 limits |
| Management reserve | Budget held above the project by the sponsor for unidentified risks |
| Milestone | A significant point or event with zero duration, often linked to a gate decision |
| Hypercare | A period of extra support right after go-live |
| Reference | Title | Use |
|---|
| BC-NNN | Business case (business/business-case) | Justification and financial analysis |
| [Doc ID] | Project management plan (project/project-management-plan) | Detailed plans, prepared after approval |
| [Doc ID] | Stakeholder register (project/stakeholder-register) | Full stakeholder analysis |
| [Doc ID] | RAID log (project/raid-log) | Risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies |
| [Doc ID] | Responsibility matrix (business/raci) | Roles per deliverable |
| [Doc ID] | Kickoff meeting agenda (meetings/kickoff) | First meeting after approval |
| PMBOK Guide, 8th ed. | A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMI, November 2025 | Charter concept and initiating practice (cited only) |
| ISO 21502:2020 | Project, programme and portfolio management, guidance on project management | Clause 6.2 pre-project activities, 6.4 directing a project, 6.5 initiating a project (cited only) |
Standard and licence note
Structure aligned with A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), Eighth Edition (Project Management Institute,
published November 2025; an errata sheet for the second printing was
issued in April 2026), using the project charter concept of the PMBOK
Guide series (a document that formally authorises a project and gives the
project manager authority to use organisational resources; check how the
Eighth Edition places it in your licensed copy), and with ISO 21502:2020,
Project, programme and portfolio management: Guidance on project
management (first edition, published December 2020), clauses 6.2
(pre-project activities), 6.4 (directing a project) and 6.5 (initiating a
project). Both are copyrighted publications: this template cites their
names, editions and clause numbers only, is original text written for
this collection, and reproduces no text, tables or figures from them. The
clause numbers were checked against the public table of contents, not
the licensed text. Check the current editions before relying on them.