Limited-time Udemy offer
$9.99
Leadership For Project Managers Leading People And Projects
Unlimited redemptions
Available until September 18, 2026 5:09 PM PDT
66D6FD5906E09C4284FE
The Meridian Project Charter
The Authorization Document
What follows is Meridian Advisory Group's project charter, signed by Elena Vasquez and Sam Torres two weeks after the business case was approved by the executive committee. Every field below appeared in the signed document.
Charter Header
| Project Name | Meridian Office Relocation Project |
| Charter Date | Month 1, Week 2 |
| Project Sponsor | Elena Vasquez, Chief Operating Officer |
| Project Manager | Sam Torres |
| Organization | Meridian Advisory Group |
| Charter Version | 1.0 — Final |
Project Purpose
Meridian Advisory Group employs 60 professionals in a downtown office designed for 40. The current lease expires in nine months. This project will plan and execute a controlled relocation of all 60 staff and the firm's technology infrastructure to an 80-person office in Westfield District before that lease expires, removing the firm's capacity constraint and positioning it for continued growth.
Project Objectives
The project is authorized on the basis of three measurable objectives.
| Objective | Measurement | Target | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|
| OBJ-1: Complete physical move | Zero staff or equipment remaining in current office | 100% relocated | End of Month 8 |
| OBJ-2: Deliver within budget | Actual spend vs approved budget | $185,000 ceiling; no executive re-approval required | End of Month 8 |
| OBJ-3: No client-facing disruptions | Client escalations attributable to the move | Zero during transition period | End of Month 8 |
Project Scope — What This Project Delivers
The following deliverables are within scope.
| Deliverable | Description | Acceptance Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Signed Westfield lease | New office lease executed with landlord, minimum 80-person capacity | Executed lease document; rate within market range; term minimum 3 years |
| Fitted and furnished office | 80 workstations, 6 enclosed meeting rooms, signage, building access control, lobby configuration | QG-3 (Quality Gate 3) walkthrough sign-off; all snag list items cleared. Quality gates are formal checkpoints where the PM and sponsor review evidence before authorizing the next phase. |
| Migrated IT infrastructure | All servers, telephony, and business systems operational at Westfield | QG-4 sign-off: acceptance criteria defined during planning. |
| Completed physical move | All 60 staff and company equipment relocated | Zero items remaining in current office; all staff have functional workspace at Westfield |
| Decommissioned current office | Current space vacated, cleaned, and returned to landlord | Landlord walkthrough passed; written exit acknowledgment received (QG-5) |
| Staff communications program | 4 all-staff emails and FAQ intranet page maintained through move | All 4 messages sent on schedule; FAQ updated within 48 hours of any major change |
Project Scope — What This Project Does Not Include
The following are explicitly out of scope.
| Exclusion | Rationale |
|---|---|
| New personal computers or peripherals | Standard IT refresh cycle; not triggered by relocation; separate annual IT budget applies |
| Organizational restructuring or reporting changes | Business operations decision; not a deliverable of the relocation |
| Renegotiation of current lease | Finance team obligation; separate from this project |
| New business software not required by the physical move | Separate IT annual budget; licensing decisions not scope of relocation |
| Personal property of individual staff members | Each person responsible for personal items; project covers company property only |
High-Level Milestone Schedule
Sam Torres developed these milestone dates from the nine-month lease expiry constraint, working backward through the logical sequence of the work.
| Milestone | Description | Target Date | Path |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | Westfield lease signed | End Month 1 | Critical |
| M2 | Fit-out contractor selected; IT infrastructure design approved | End Month 2 | Critical (IT design); preliminary sequencing (fit-out contractor) |
| M3 | Server room cabling and hardware installation complete | End Month 4 | Critical |
| M4 | Office fit-out accepted by Sam Torres | End Month 5 | Preliminary timing |
| M5 | IT systems tested and accepted by all department heads | End Month 7 | Critical |
| M6 | Physical move complete; old office returned to landlord | End Month 8 | Critical |
Approved Budget
The project is authorized to spend up to $185,000, inclusive of a contingency reserve. No expenditure may exceed this ceiling without written approval from Elena Vasquez.
| Base Estimate | $163,000 |
| Contingency Reserve | $22,000 |
| Total Authorized | $185,000 |
Constraints and Assumptions
The following are the conditions this project must operate within and the facts it is relying on.
| Constraint | Implication |
|---|---|
| Project must complete before current lease expires (Month 9) | Any slippage beyond Month 8 requires emergency lease extension or emergency accommodation |
| No budget authority beyond $185,000 without new executive approval | PM must escalate immediately if cost forecast exceeds ceiling |
| All IT work must comply with Meridian's existing security policy | IT Lead must confirm compliance at each IT gate; policy deviations require CTO sign-off |
| Westfield office must seat a minimum of 80 people | Lease negotiation cannot proceed on any space below this threshold |
| Assumption | Owner | Monitor When |
|---|---|---|
| Westfield property available at quoted lease terms through LOI (Letter of Intent) execution | Rachel Kim | Weeks 1 through 3 of Month 1 |
| IT systems compatible with standard commercial cabling infrastructure | Marcus Chen | Month 2 discovery sprint |
| Staff productivity recovers within 10 business days post-move | Priya Kapoor | Week 2 post-move |
| No early exit penalty from current landlord with proper written notice | Rachel Kim | Review current lease terms by end Month 1 |
Project Manager Authority
Sam Torres is authorized to act as follows without sponsor escalation.
| Authority | Limit | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Individual procurement decisions | Up to $15,000 per contract | Must be within approved budget and scope |
| Cumulative procurement authority | Up to $50,000 total without re-approval | Tracked in procurement log |
| Scope changes | Approved if zero cost and zero schedule impact | Must be documented in change register regardless |
| Schedule updates | PM authority to update activity-level actuals | Milestone date changes require sponsor approval |
| Contingency draw-down | Per risk management plan | Any draw-down reported to sponsor at next biweekly |
Any change with budget impact, or any decision requiring budget beyond the approved ceiling, escalates to Elena Vasquez within 48 hours.
Roles and Responsibilities
The following team members are confirmed for the project. Accountability for each major deliverable is defined here; task-level responsibility is defined in the project management plan.
| Deliverable | Sam Torres PM |
Elena Vasquez COO |
Marcus Chen IT |
Priya Kapoor Ops |
Tom Walsh Facilities |
Rachel Kim Finance/Legal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Signed Westfield lease | A | C | I | I | I | R |
| Office fit-out | A | I | C | R | R | I |
| IT infrastructure migration | C | I | A | I | I | I |
| Physical move | A | I | C | R | R | I |
| Staff communications | R | A | I | R | I | I |
| Budget management | R | A | C | C | C | C |
Key Risks at Authorization
The following risks were accepted by the sponsor when this charter was signed. Each will be assigned a response plan during project planning.
| Risk | Nature | PM Obligation |
|---|---|---|
| Lease negotiation extends beyond Month 1 | Timeline risk | Fast-track legal review from Week 1; backup property confirmed in Month 1 |
| IT migration complexity exceeds estimate | Cost and schedule risk | Month 2 discovery sprint scopes migration before main work begins |
| Staff disruption exceeds 4-week estimate | Business continuity risk | Move during low-billing period; advance stakeholder notifications |
Signatures
By signing below, the sponsor authorizes the project to proceed and the project manager accepts responsibility for delivering within the constraints above.
| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project Sponsor | Elena Vasquez, COO | [signed] | Month 1, Week 2 |
| Project Manager | Sam Torres | [signed] | Month 1, Week 2 |
Real-World Example: The Charter Nobody Could Find
A technology company launched a data migration project with a budget approved and a timeline agreed, but the scope had only been described verbally. No charter was written. At month five, the VP of operations asked for a reporting module to be added. The PM declined, explaining it would take three more months. The VP responded that the module had been part of the original ask. Neither had documentation of the original scope. The resulting dispute went to the director level, consumed two weeks of senior leadership time, and the module was ultimately added at a cost of the PM's credibility. A charter with a scope statement and an explicit out-of-scope list would have settled the question in five minutes.
What's Next
With the charter signed, planning begins. The next chapter develops the project scope statement and work breakdown structure: the two documents that translate the charter's high-level deliverables into every discrete piece of work the project must deliver.
Reflect
- The charter names the PM's authority level explicitly: individual procurement up to $15,000, scope changes only if zero cost and schedule impact. Have you worked on a project where the PM's authority was unclear? What happened when a decision arose that fell in the grey zone?
- Notice that the charter's milestone schedule places M4 at preliminary timing with a 2-week float, while M1, M3, M5, and M6 sit on the critical path. At charter stage, before detailed scheduling, how would Sam have known which milestones had float and which did not?
- Out-of-scope sections matter as much as in-scope ones. Think about a project you worked on where something was missing from the out-of-scope list. How did that omission affect the project?
Advanced Project Management — Measuring Project Performance
Move beyond guesswork and status reporting. This course helps you measure real progress, spot problems early, and make confident decisions using proven project performance techniques. If you manage complex projects and want clearer visibility and control, this course is built for you.
This is not abstract theory. You’ll work step by step through Earned Value Management (EVM), learning how cost, schedule, and scope come together to show true performance. You’ll build a solid foundation in EVM concepts, understand why formulas work, and learn how performance data actually supports leadership decisions.
You’ll master Work Breakdown Structures (WBS), control accounts, and budget baselines, then apply core EVM metrics like EAC, TCPI, and variance analysis. Through a detailed real-world example, you’ll forecast outcomes, analyze trends, and understand contingencies and management reserves with confidence.
Learn how experienced project managers monitor performance, communicate results clearly, and take corrective action before projects slip. With practical exercises and hands-on analysis, you’ll be ready to apply EVM immediately. Enroll now and start managing performance with clarity and control.
Explore the CourseLead with clarity, influence, and outcomes.
HK School of Management offers a practical Leadership for Project Managers course for real projects, tight deadlines, and cross-functional teams. Learn to set direction, align stakeholders, and drive commitment without relying on title. Practical skills, tools, and guidance you can apply right away. Covered by Udemy's 30-day refund policy.
Learn More