The Standards of a Project Charter

Marcus,

It is often that a charter references other documents (e.g. business case, SOW, contract, policies, program roadmaps), which in turn may be under some change control, but I have not seen attachments.

I would keep it very general. For example an internal stakeholder may be Operations and Maintenance department; an external stakeholder may be a specific government department, Environment or Health and Safety.(labour).

It would be wise for the Sponsor to discuss possible or contemplated changes with the PM as it may have an impact on what has already been done and may give rise to a different risk profile. If the Charter change is driven by the PM (cost, time, scope variations) then it most likely would be through a change request.

The intent of the Charter is to be very high level so that changes are not required. The job of the PM is to deliver the project within the parameters and constraints of the project as defined by the Charter. A PM driven request for a Charter change is an admission that the PM cannot deliver the initial requirements and thus needs to change the requirements.

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.

In response to the original question it should be noted that not all projects have an official charter at the start. There may be various documentation, emails, business case, etc. created during the initial considerations or options related to a solution to a problem that could add up to a charter. This may be enough for the PM to proceed in delivering a simple project but for more complex solution it may be advisable for the PM to convince the Sponsor to develop a more formal charter.

As a PM I have prepared the Project Charter for the Sponsor's signature allowing project delivery flexibility but the Sponsor should retain ownership regardless of author. The danger here is that the PM inserts material that really belongs in the Project Plan thus creating a hybrid document and tying the PM's hands as to methodology.

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?

Marcus,
As the PM, I normally sign as Prepared By. My manager signs as Reviewed By since they really have no approval authority, and the execs sign of as approvers.
Keith

Project Charter should be a short and explicitly say
- what is the business case
- what is the success criteria
- by when we have to release
- what is the impact if delayed for time to market

PM may not be author but one of key stakeholders, PM should make the project scope & management plan to meet the timelines which sponsor expects.

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.

I hear you, Peter, but I think you may be addressing points I didn't, in your response to me. I don't disagree with your cautionary tale. However, failed commitments are exactly what you risk when you commit to finishing something before you understand the work that is needed to deliver the desired value and how long it will take. This information doesn't usually exist when a project charter is being developed. Obtaining this information is not part of the project charter creation process. This is independent of constraints which should be understood when developing the project charter.