The Standards of a Project Charter

Thanks Thomas. I'd have to agree that the main purpose the project charter is to authorize the PM to manage and implement the defined project, which is signed off by the sponsor.

You say a charter is not changed. However, can the charter have an appendix or an addendum added to it, after it has been signed off?

Thanks Peter. When you say name the significant stakeholders, do you mean name their roles, or their actual full names?

If the sponsor changes the charter, I don't think a change request is required, is it?

Thanks Keith. So, as the PM might be involved in authoring the charter, at the end of the day the charter still needs to be signed off by the project sponsor? I don't think the PM can sign or co-sign a charter.

It depends on the purpose or intent of the Charter. In some cases the Charter becomes an agreement document between the Sponsor and the PM in which case both parties would sign-off. It also means that both parties need to agree to any changes.

Personally I prefer the Charter to be a "directive" from the Sponsor (marching orders) rather than a formal agreement - "this is what I want and why by when, this is what I'm prepared to pay, here are the entities (stakeholders) that have a direct influence and here is your authority to deliver.

Thanks Keith. So, as the PM might be involved in authoring the charter, at the end of the day the charter still needs to be signed off by the project sponsor? I don't think the PM can sign or co-sign a charter.

Before my current position at the company I currently work for, most project charters were approved before I was involved with the project. In my current role, we (the PMs in the PMO) "designed" the charter and often help the business fill it out.

I find it interesting how the statement that, "once signed off, [the charter] can not be modified by the PM," is interpreted by some as, "the charter can not be changed" or, "if the charter is changed, you have to cancel the project and start over." In general, the PM does not have the authority to make decisions that would change the charter, but other people do.

In my experience, I have a better understanding of the project when I am involved from the beginning - before the charter is created - and can influence what goes into it, namely that the person creating the charter clearly defines the expected outcomes, breaks out of their silo when identifying ROI and value realization, and has the data needed to support the reason for the project. I've also found it necessary to keep people from committing to a finish date in the charter; how do you commit to a finish date when scope and requirements aren't defined, yet?

Aaron: be careful with undefined time, cost and quality constraints. Projects are a bit like gas - they will fill/use whatever space/volume (money and time) is available. "We will deliver when we are done, it will cost what it will cost and you will get what we give you". I had a consulting architect provide that response once - he didn't last. This is an unrealistic approach to project delivery.

Projects only have value when delivered within constraints - too costly and/or too late will have serious impact on the suitability of the end product - missed opportunities, failed commitments.