Highlight Report Template
Periodic report to the project board: summary, products done and due, tolerance table (time, cost, scope, quality, risk, benefits, sustainability), risks, changes, lessons, requests
Mode d'emploi: Use it during a stage to keep the project board informed against the stage plan and delegated tolerances without a meeting. Fill the tolerance table in section 3 first, from checkpoint reports and the registers. The main pitfall is reporting activity instead of products and forecast, or using it when a forecast already breaches tolerance (write an exception report instead).
Aperçu
Highlight Report: [Project name], Stage [N], period ending YYYY-MM-DD
A highlight report is the regular, short progress report that the project manager sends to the project board (or steering group) during a stage. It compares progress with the approved stage plan and with the tolerances the board delegated, so the board can stay informed without meeting, and it flags early anything that may need the board's attention. The structure is aligned with the highlight report management product described in PRINCE2 7 (PeopleCert, 2023) and works for any stage-gated project. Replace every
[bracketed]value and every row marked Example.
Document control
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [HR-PROJ-NNN] |
| Project | [Project name] ([project code]) |
| Stage | [Stage number and name] |
| Reporting period | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD |
| Report number | [N] |
| Version | [1.0] |
| Status | [Draft / Issued] |
| Author | [@project-manager] |
| Distribution | [Project board members, project assurance, project support] |
| Classification | [Internal] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
Approvals
A highlight report is issued for information; it is not approved. Record who reviewed it before issue.
| Role | Name | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Project manager (author) | [@project-manager] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Project assurance (review) | [@assurance] | YYYY-MM-DD |
Revision history
| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@author] | Draft from checkpoint reports |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@author] | Issued to the board |
The worked example is the Tenant Services Portal project of Brackwell Vale Housing Trust, a fictional housing association replacing its tenant self-service website. Stage 3, Build and migrate, runs 16 weeks from 2027-02-01 to 2027-05-21 with a budget of 520,000 EUR. This is highlight report 4, for week 8.
1. Summary
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Overall status | [Green / Amber / Red] (previous: [Green / Amber / Red]) |
| Forecast stage end date | YYYY-MM-DD (plan: YYYY-MM-DD) |
| Forecast stage cost | [Amount] (budget: [Amount]) |
| Within stage tolerances? | [Yes / At risk / No: exception report follows] |
| Board action needed | [None / Note / Decision, see section 7] |
Example: Overall status Amber (previous Green). Portal build is on plan and 5 of 9 stage products are complete. Legacy data profiling in work package WP-07 found more poor-quality tenancy records than the sample suggested, so forecast stage cost has risen to 548,000 EUR (+28,000 EUR, +5.4%) and forecast stage end to 2027-05-28 (+1 week). Both are inside the stage tolerances of +/-8% cost and +/-2 weeks time. The board is asked to note the data quality risk RSK-014.
2. Products completed and in progress
2.1 Completed this period
| Product ID | Product | Quality check | Approved by | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [PRD-NN] | [Product] | [Review, test, inspection] | [@approver] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| PRD-31 (Example) | Tenant login with multi-factor option | System test passed, 0 open severity 1 or 2 defects | [@product-owner] | 2027-03-24 |
| PRD-32 (Example) | Repairs request form | Accessibility review against WCAG 2.2 AA | [@accessibility-lead] | 2027-03-25 |
2.2 Planned for the next period
| Product ID | Product | Due | Owner | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [PRD-NN] | [Product] | YYYY-MM-DD | [@owner] | [High / Medium / Low] |
| PRD-33 (Example) | Rent statement and payment page | 2027-04-09 | [@team-manager-web] | High |
| PRD-36 (Example) | Cleansed tenancy records, batch 1 | 2027-04-09 | [@team-manager-data] | Low |
2.3 Behind plan
| Product ID | Product | Was due | Now forecast | Reason | Recovery action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [PRD-NN] | [Product] | YYYY-MM-DD | YYYY-MM-DD | [Reason] | [Action] |
| PRD-35 (Example) | Data profiling report | 2027-03-19 | 2027-03-26 (done) | Extra profiling of 3 legacy tables | None needed; see RSK-014 for impact |
3. Performance against stage tolerances
| Area | Plan or target | Tolerance | Actual to date | Forecast at stage end | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | [End date] | [+/- weeks] | [Weeks used] | [Date] | [G / A / R] |
| Cost | [Budget] | [+/- %] | [Spend] | [Amount] | [G / A / R] |
| Scope | [Products in plan] | [Must / should split] | [Products done] | [Products forecast] | [G / A / R] |
| Quality | [Quality criteria] | [Allowed range] | [Result] | [Forecast] | [G / A / R] |
| Risk | [Risk appetite or score limit] | [Limit] | [Highest score] | [Forecast] | [G / A / R] |
| Benefits | [Benefit forecast] | [Range] | [n/a during build] | [Forecast] | [G / A / R] |
| Sustainability | [Target, if set] | [Range] | [Value] | [Forecast] | [G / A / R] |
| Time (Example) | End 2027-05-21 | +/- 2 weeks | 8 of 16 weeks | 2027-05-28 (+1 week) | A |
| Cost (Example) | 520,000 EUR | +/- 8% (41,600 EUR) | 262,000 EUR (plan to date 255,000 EUR, +2.7%) | 548,000 EUR (+5.4%) | A |
| Scope (Example) | 9 products | All must-have | 5 complete | 9 | G |
| Quality (Example) | 0 open severity 1 defects at stage end | 0 | 0 | 0 | G |
Explain every Amber and Red line in one or two sentences.
Example: Cost and time are Amber because the extra data cleansing in WP-07 adds an estimated 28,000 EUR and one week. Headroom left in the cost tolerance is 13,600 EUR (41,600 minus 28,000). If cleansing effort rises by more than about half again, the forecast will breach tolerance and the project manager will raise an exception report.
4. Risks and issues
| ID | Type | Description | Change this period | Action and owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [RSK-NNN / ISS-NNN] | [Risk / Issue] | [Description] | [New / Score up / Score down / Closed] | [Action, @owner] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| RSK-014 (Example) | Risk | Legacy tenancy records need more cleansing than estimated, raising cost and delaying migration | New, probability 4 x impact 4 = 16 | Daily cleansing burn-down, @team-manager-data | 2027-04-02 |
| ISS-009 (Example) | Issue | Payment provider sandbox down for 3 days | Closed | Testing caught up in week 8, @team-manager-web | Done |
Full registers: [link to project/raid-log or tool].
5. Changes and issues handled within tolerance
| ID | Change | Decided by | Effect on cost and time | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [CR-NNN] | [Change] | [@project-manager / change authority] | [Effect] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| CR-021 (Example) | Add Irish-language labels to login pages | Change authority | +2,400 EUR, no time effect, from change budget | 2027-03-22 |
6. Lessons and good news
- [Lesson or achievement]
- Example: Sampling 2% of legacy records under-estimated data quality problems. Profile the full data set before estimating migration effort.
- Example: The repairs form passed its accessibility review first time because the design system components were used unchanged.
7. Requests to the board
| # | Request | Type | Needed by |
|---|---|---|---|
| [1] | [Request] | [Note / Advice] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| 1 (Example) | Note RSK-014 and the reduced cost tolerance headroom | Note | Next board review |
8. Next period
| Item | Date | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| [Product or milestone] | YYYY-MM-DD | [@owner] |
| Example: Rent statement and payment page complete | 2027-04-09 | [@team-manager-web] |
| Example: Cleansing burn-down review with WP-07 team | 2027-04-02 | [@project-manager] |
9. Related templates
- Exception report, when a forecast breaches tolerance
- End stage report, at the stage boundary
- Work package, the source of checkpoint reporting
- RAID log for risks, assumptions, issues and dependencies
- Steering committee report for a meeting-based governance model
- Status report for a lighter, non-staged format
Glossary
- Project board: the group that directs the project, usually an executive (sponsor), a senior user and a senior supplier.
- Stage: a section of the project that the board authorises one at a time.
- Tolerance: the permitted deviation above or below a plan target (time, cost, scope, quality, risk, benefits, sustainability) before the next level up must be told.
- Checkpoint report: a team manager's progress report on a work package to the project manager.
- Exception: a situation where a tolerance is forecast to be exceeded.
- RAG: Red, Amber, Green status rating. Define what each colour means in the project management approach.
Standard and licence note
Structure aligned with the highlight report management product and the "manage by exception" principle of PRINCE2 7 (Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2, 7th edition, PeopleCert, 2023). PRINCE2 is cited by name only: no text, tables or figures from the publication are reproduced, and the headings, wording and the fictional Brackwell Vale example are original. The sustainability tolerance line reflects PeopleCert's public announcement that PRINCE2 7 integrates sustainability into project performance. Official text: PeopleCert, purchase or licensed access: https://www.peoplecert.org/prince2. PRINCE2 is a registered trademark of PeopleCert. Check the current edition and your organisation's project management approach before use. Template licence: MIT.
Modèles associés
Earned Value Report Template (EVM)
Periodic EVM report: PV, EV, AC, SV, CV, SPI, CPI, S-curve, control accounts, variance analysis, earned schedule, EAC methods, TCPI check, decisions
Gestion de projetEnd Stage Report Template
Stage close: performance vs original and exception plan, products and concessions, business case review, benefits, lessons, carried-forward risks, next stage request
Gestion de projetException Report Template
Forecast tolerance breach: cause, stage and project consequences, costed options checked against both tolerance levels, recommendation, board decision record