Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Dictionary Template

Deliverable-oriented WBS with numbered hierarchy, diagram, 100% rule check, WBS dictionary and work package sizing rules

Manajemen ProyekStandarwork breakdown structure diagramDiperbarui 20 Okt 2026

Buka di editorUnduh .md

Cara menggunakan: Use during planning to decompose the approved scope into work packages that can be estimated and owned. Fill the outline first, then the dictionary rows. Main pitfall: listing activities (verbs) instead of deliverables, or breaking the 100% rule.

Pratinjau

Work Breakdown Structure: [Project name]

Deliverable-oriented decomposition of the full project scope into manageable work packages, with a WBS dictionary that defines each element. Based on common project management practice. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Field	Value
Document ID	[WBS-PROJECT-001]
Project	[Project name] ([code])
Version	[0.1]
Status	[Draft / Approved / Baselined]
Owner	[@project-manager]
Related	[Scope statement, Project schedule SCH-001]
Last updated	YYYY-MM-DD

1. Purpose and scope

This WBS decomposes the approved scope statement of [Project name] (version [x.y]) into deliverables and work packages. It covers all project work, including project management, and excludes [items explicitly out of scope, for example ongoing operations after handover].

2. Numbering and conventions

Elements are numbered hierarchically: level 1 is the project (1), level 2 the major deliverables (1.1, 1.2), level 3 sub-deliverables (1.2.1) and the lowest level the work packages. Work package IDs are reused as cost codes in [finance system] and as task groups in the schedule.

Convention	Rule
Names	Nouns describing outcomes, for example "Test environment", not "Set up environment"
Depth	Three to four levels for most projects
Project management	Always a separate level 2 element
Owner	Every work package has exactly one accountable owner

3. WBS diagram

The diagram below shows the top three levels of the WBS.

4. WBS outline

The outline lists every element down to work package level.

1 [Digital onboarding project]
- 1.1 Project management
  - 1.1.1 Planning and baselines (WP)
  - 1.1.2 Monitoring, reporting and governance (WP)
  - 1.1.3 Project closure (WP)
- 1.2 Process design
  - 1.2.1 Current-state process analysis (WP)
  - 1.2.2 Target process and procedures (WP)
- 1.3 Onboarding platform
  - 1.3.1 Application front end (WP)
  - 1.3.2 Integrations with core banking and identity service (WP)
  - 1.3.3 Test and acceptance (WP)
- 1.4 Organisational change
  - 1.4.1 Training (WP)
  - 1.4.2 Communications (WP)
- 1.5 Deployment
  - 1.5.1 Production release (WP)
  - 1.5.2 Hypercare and handover (WP)

5. The 100% rule check

The WBS has been reviewed against the scope statement to confirm that the children of each element contain all of the parent's work and nothing outside it.

Check	Result	Reviewer	Date
Every in-scope item in the scope statement maps to at least one work package	[Pass / Gaps listed]	[@name]	YYYY-MM-DD
No work package contains out-of-scope work	[Pass]	[@name]	YYYY-MM-DD
No two work packages cover the same work	[Pass]	[@name]	YYYY-MM-DD
Effort and cost of children sum to the parent	[Pass]	[@name]	YYYY-MM-DD

6. WBS dictionary

The dictionary defines each work package so that owners, estimators and acceptors share one description.

ID	Name	Description	Deliverables	Acceptance criteria	Owner	Effort (pd)	Cost	Dependencies
1.2.2	Example: Target process and procedures	Design the future onboarding process for 7 customer scenarios	Process maps, procedure documents	Signed off by head of operations; all 7 scenarios covered	[@ba-lead]	40	4,800 EUR	1.2.1
1.3.2	Example: Integrations	Build and test APIs to core banking and identity service	Interface specs, integration code, test evidence	All interface tests pass; latency below 2 s at p95	[@tech-lead]	90	10,800 EUR	1.2.2, vendor contract
1.4.1	Example: Training	Train 240 branch staff on the new process	Training plan, materials, attendance records	95% of staff trained before go-live; assessment pass rate 80%	[@change-lead]	35	9,200 EUR	1.2.2, 1.3.3
[x.y.z]	[Name]	[Description]	[Deliverables]	[Criteria]	[@owner]	[n]	[Cost]	[IDs]

7. Work package sizing rules

Work packages follow these sizing rules, which balance control against administrative effort.

Rule	Threshold	Rationale
Maximum effort	[80] person-days or [8 to 80] hour rule at task level	Progress visible within one reporting period
Maximum duration	[6] weeks	Problems surface before they become late
Single owner	One accountable person	Clear accountability
Verifiable output	Each package produces a deliverable with acceptance criteria	Objective measure of completion
Estimable	Effort and cost can be estimated with +/- 15% confidence	Supports a credible cost baseline

Packages that break a rule are either decomposed further or justified in the notes below.

[Justified exceptions, for example: 1.5.2 Hypercare runs 8 weeks because the service level must hold for a full month-end cycle.]

8. Roll-up summary

The table rolls up effort and cost to level 2.

ID	Element	Effort (pd)	Cost	Share of total
1.1	Project management	Example: 120	14,400 EUR	8%
1.2	Process design	70	8,400 EUR	5%
1.3	Onboarding platform	260	171,200 EUR	62%
1.4	Organisational change	80	34,000 EUR	12%
1.5	Deployment	60	36,000 EUR	13%
Total		590	264,000 EUR	100%

9. Change history

Changes to the baselined WBS are recorded below.

Version	Date	Change	Change request	Author
1.0	YYYY-MM-DD	Baselined at plan approval	n/a	[@name]
1.1	YYYY-MM-DD	Example: Added 1.3.4 Accessibility audit	CR-004	[@name]

Standard and licence note

Based on common project management practice for work breakdown structures and WBS dictionaries. This template is original text written for this collection. Template licence: MIT.

Templat terkait

Manajemen Proyek