S RajasekarSenior Project Manager| AllscriptsBangalore, Karnataka, India
Yes, Can be changed anytime...It depends on what the change,impacts and in which phase of the project ? It should go through change control process.... Saving Changes...
SANJEET KUMAR PATRAAssociate Director| UBS USA LLCNashville, Tn, United States
Thanks everyone Saving Changes...
Sudha ChudamaniTechnical Project Manager/Solutions Architect| TistaNorth Potomac, Md, United States
I am confused a bit. If some of the key stakeholders want a change to the Project Charter (after it has been signed and the project is well under-way) but not the Sponsor, what should the Project Manager do?
The project manager should request the project sponsor to talk to the stakeholders about the decision. Presumably, the project sponsor took the stakeholders' feedback into the decision.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Everything can be change after sign-off. The only thing to do is following the defined project change management process.
...
1 reply by Chris Craig
May 18, 2020 4:28 PM
Chris Craig
...
This is the most correct answer in the thread in technical terms. Peter Rapin's post a couple of entries down provides a good description of the considerations and consequences of a change to the charter.
It boils down to this: Projects deliver a product, service, or result. The charter's most important job is to describe the product, service, or result, and establish sufficient authority for the project manager to deliver success. So if you're changing that part of the charter, it comes pretty close to changing the project itself. I respectfully disagree with Thomas Walenta's post that revocation of the originally chartered authority should result in terminating the entire project (although that might be the best thing to do in many cases; I just don't think it's universally true). Otherwise I very much agree with Thomas's remarks as well.
Anything else in the charter besides the core objectives and authority, such as sponsor names, high-level risks, ROM budget estimates, etc.--there's no real value to updating that stuff. It's expected to change, and the source of truth should be the PM plans and the project knowledge repository.
I am confused a bit. If some of the key stakeholders want a change to the Project Charter (after it has been signed and the project is well under-way) but not the Sponsor, what should the Project Manager do?
The project manager should request the project sponsor to talk to the stakeholders about the decision. Presumably, the project sponsor took the stakeholders' feedback into the decision. Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Essentially a Project Charter is an agreement by the stakeholders as to what we are setting out to accomplish (the deliverable), and identifying the significant constraints (time, costs, quality, etc). A change would require the identification of the revision to the deliverable and constraints with consensus of all parties to the agreement.
Some use the Project Charter to define how the deliverable is to be achieved. If that's the case, then the methodology may change without altering the deliverable or constraints. This scenario is less significant and may not require all stakeholder sign-on. My preference is to deal with methodology as a separate document - the Project Management Plan, and not within the Project Charter.
When contemplating a change in the Project Charter one has to be careful as to the business case for the revision. It must stand on its merits.
"We don't need/want what we agreed to any more [because ...] but we have the funds and team in place so let's do [this ...] instead" is a very poor justification for a change. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Would say no, and have never seen such a change in my career.
A charter's main purpose is one of governance, to give authority from a sponsor to a project manager to spent resources on behalf of the performing organization. At this specific point in time and the knowledge available then. The charter serves as document of this, similar to the constitution of a country. If you want to withdraw that authority, you may cancel the project. Take as example you chartered a project to build a house and change your mind to buy a car instead. Scope change or just kill the house project?
Planning by the assigned project manager results in a project management plan which is much more detailed than the charter, approved by the sponsor and subject to change control. I have seldom seen project management plans that 100% reflect the charter.
The charter is like a birth certificate which is never changed either. Your ID or passport will change.
Any items in the charter are subject to change though, the sponsor or project manager may change, the scope, constraints and whatever else is in there. This is done by means of a change request which results in a change to the project management plan. Saving Changes...
Chris CraigInformation Technology Specialist II| CA Dept. of Health Care ServicesCarmichael, Ca, United States
May 15, 2020 8:18 AM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
Everything can be change after sign-off. The only thing to do is following the defined project change management process.
This is the most correct answer in the thread in technical terms. Peter Rapin's post a couple of entries down provides a good description of the considerations and consequences of a change to the charter.
It boils down to this: Projects deliver a product, service, or result. The charter's most important job is to describe the product, service, or result, and establish sufficient authority for the project manager to deliver success. So if you're changing that part of the charter, it comes pretty close to changing the project itself. I respectfully disagree with Thomas Walenta's post that revocation of the originally chartered authority should result in terminating the entire project (although that might be the best thing to do in many cases; I just don't think it's universally true). Otherwise I very much agree with Thomas's remarks as well.
Anything else in the charter besides the core objectives and authority, such as sponsor names, high-level risks, ROM budget estimates, etc.--there's no real value to updating that stuff. It's expected to change, and the source of truth should be the PM plans and the project knowledge repository. Saving Changes...
