Charter Section Deep-Dive
Most charter objectives fail two tests. They describe outputs rather than outcomes ("build a new portal" instead of "reduce support tickets by 30%") and they have no baseline, no deadline, and no measurement method. The rewrites below show what one-pass-approval objectives look like.
The single largest cause of charter rework is writing outputs (what the project produces) where the sponsor expects outcomes (what gets better as a result). Sponsors do not care that the team built a thing; they care that something changed in the business as a result. Compare:
| Output (what the team builds) | Outcome (what improves) |
|---|---|
| Build and launch a new pricing page | Lift trial-to-paid conversion from 4.2% to 6.5% by end of Q3 2026, measured by Stripe + Mixpanel |
| Replace the payroll system | Reduce payroll processing time per pay cycle from 12 hours to 4 hours and bring error rate below 0.5% within 6 months of go-live |
| Open a new distribution centre | Reduce average delivery time to West Coast customers from 4.2 days to 2.5 days by Q2 2027, while holding total fulfilment cost per order constant |
| Deliver a customer training programme | Achieve 70% certification pass rate on new platform among existing customer admins within 90 days of launch (current trained: 12%) |
Three to five objectives. Below three the charter is over-simplified; above five the team will struggle to optimise for all of them and the sponsor will struggle to remember any. The discipline is to identify the three most important outcomes the project must deliver and to defer everything else to the "non-goals" section.
If a stakeholder pushes for a sixth objective, ask which of the first five they want to drop. Charter objectives are not a wishlist; they are the commitment the project will be judged against. PMI Pulse data consistently shows three-to-five objective charters outperform charters with more or fewer.
Apply SMART to every objective before submitting the charter. If an objective fails any of the five tests, rewrite it. The SMART criteria builder walks through this in depth.
Specific
Names the metric, the cohort, and the measurement system. Not 'improve customer satisfaction' but 'lift CSAT (post-interaction survey, 5-point scale) from 4.1 to 4.4 in the support tier 1 cohort'.
Measurable
Numeric. If the metric is qualitative (e.g. 'pass GDS Service Assessment'), name the gate, the assessor, and the pass criteria.
Achievable
Within the team's capability and budget envelope. If achievement requires a 10x team or 5x budget, the objective is aspirational not achievable. Aspirational objectives belong in the company strategy, not the charter.
Relevant
Traceable to the business case and the organisation's strategy. If the objective is achievable but uninteresting, the charter should not be approved.
Time-bound
Has a specific deadline. 'By end of Q3 2026' is acceptable; 'as soon as possible' is not.
Software / SaaS
Bad
Improve customer onboarding experience.
Not measurable. No baseline. No deadline. Could mean anything. The sponsor will approve and then re-define the success criterion at month 6.
Good
Reduce time-to-first-value from sign-up to first successful API call from 14 days (median, Q1 2026) to under 7 days by end of Q3 2026, measured weekly in the activation cohort dashboard.
Why it works: Specific metric. Baseline named with source. Target named with deadline. Measurement method defined.
Manufacturing
Bad
Modernise Packaging Line 7.
Output (we will modernise a line) not outcome (what gets better). Could be interpreted as 'replace some PLCs' or 'install full new line'.
Good
Lift Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) on Packaging Line 7 from 62.3% to 84.7% within 6 months of commissioning, with planned shutdown contained to 3 weeks (2-23 Jan 2027).
Why it works: Specific metric (OEE). Baseline + target + deadline. Implementation constraint (3-week shutdown) named upfront.
Healthcare
Bad
Implement new patient records system.
Output not outcome. The system existing is not the goal; the system working and being used is the goal.
Good
Achieve 95% clinician adoption (defined as 80% of weekly clinical note authoring done in the new system) within 6 months of go-live, with no medication-error rate increase during cutover (baseline: 0.082 per 1,000 dispenses).
Why it works: Outcome metric (adoption + safety). Two complementary measures (one positive, one guardrail) prevent gaming. Patient-safety baseline preserves the floor.
Marketing
Bad
Increase brand awareness.
Not measurable without a method. 'Awareness' is a research concept; the charter needs to name the method.
Good
Lift unaided brand awareness from 4% to 11% within the target ICP (mid-market North American IT decision-makers), measured by an independent brand-tracker survey pre-campaign and 6 weeks post-campaign, n=400 each wave.
Why it works: Specific cohort (ICP). Method named (independent tracker). Baseline + target + sample size all named. The methodology is sponsor-approvable.
Related on this site
Updated 2 May 2026