Template by Industry
IT projects fail at a 70% rate (Standish Group). The three charter sections that change most for IT: scope (system and data boundaries), risk (data loss, downtime, vendor lock-in), and success criteria (uptime, migration accuracy, user adoption).
Updated 11 April 2026
Which systems migrate, which integrate, which retire. The boundary between 'migrate' and 'integrate' causes 60% of IT project scope disputes.
What data migrates, what gets archived, what gets retired. A $1.2M ERP migration can fail because someone assumed 10 years of data would migrate when the charter only covered 5.
At what point do you revert? Define the threshold before cutover: if data integrity errors exceed 0.1%, if system uptime drops below 95%, if critical integrations fail.
Project name, sponsor, PM, vendor partner, contract type, and project classification (migration, integration, greenfield, or upgrade).
Document the systems being replaced or modified. Include: system name, version, number of users, data volume, integrations (upstream and downstream), and annual maintenance cost.
Document the end state. Include: new system name, deployment model (cloud, on-premise, hybrid), expected users, integration architecture, and expected annual cost.
Three categories: systems (which applications), data (which tables/objects, how many years), and integrations (which upstream/downstream connections). Explicitly state what is NOT migrating.
What migrates (active master data, transaction history), what archives (read-only access to legacy), and what retires (no longer accessible). Include data volume estimates and migration method.
Map every upstream and downstream system. For each: integration method (API, file, middleware), data flow direction, frequency, and owner. Identify which integrations are critical path.
Planned downtime windows, cutover sequence, parallel run duration (if any), and go-live criteria. Include the communication plan for downtime notification.
Define the thresholds that trigger a rollback: data integrity error rate, system availability, critical integration failures, and user-reported blocking issues. Include the rollback procedure and time estimate.
IT-specific risks: data integrity failures, vendor delays, performance degradation, integration breakdowns, security vulnerabilities, user adoption resistance, and license cost overruns.
Four categories: licensing (subscription or perpetual), implementation (vendor + internal), training (materials + lost productivity), and contingency (typically 15 to 25% for migrations).
System uptime (target: 99.5%+), data migration accuracy (target: 99.9%+), user adoption rate (target: 80%+ within 90 days), and performance benchmarks (response time, throughput).
Internal team (PM, technical lead, functional leads by module, DBA, security), vendor team (implementation partner, technical architect, data migration specialist), and RACI for key decisions.
| Dimension | Cloud Migration | On-Premise Migration |
|---|---|---|
| Budget structure | OpEx (subscription), lower upfront, higher ongoing | CapEx (perpetual license), higher upfront, lower ongoing |
| Security scope | Shared responsibility model, cloud provider manages infrastructure security | Full responsibility, must scope hardware, network, and application security |
| Data residency | Must specify region/country for data storage (GDPR, data sovereignty) | Data stays on-site, simpler compliance for regulated industries |
| Vendor dependency | Higher vendor lock-in risk, must include exit strategy in charter | Lower lock-in, but higher maintenance and upgrade responsibility |
| Rollback complexity | Easier rollback (provision new environment), but data rollback still complex | Harder rollback (hardware provisioning), but more control over timing |
A complete $1.2M charter for an 18-month ERP migration covering Finance, Supply Chain, HR, and Manufacturing. Includes data migration scope, integration dependencies, rollback criteria, and phased cutover plan.
View the full ERP migration charter example →