Component Deep-Dive
The charter risk register captures the top 3 to 5 risks with P x I scoring. It is not a full risk management plan. It is the escalation trigger that tells the sponsor which risks need their attention before the project starts.
Updated 11 April 2026
| Dimension | Charter Risk Register | Project Plan Risk Register |
|---|---|---|
| Number of risks | Top 3 to 5 | 15 to 30+ |
| Detail level | One-sentence description + P x I score | Full description, triggers, response plan, owner, budget |
| Response type | Charter-level: one-line action | Plan-level: mitigation strategy, contingency, residual risk |
| Audience | Sponsor and steering committee | Project team and functional leads |
| Purpose | Flag risks that could stop the project before it starts | Manage risks throughout execution |
| Update frequency | Only if charter is revised | Weekly or at each phase gate |
Use the 3x3 matrix for charter risk registers and small projects. Use 5x5 for enterprise risk management and regulated industries where finer granularity is required.
| Low Impact | Medium Impact | High Impact | |
|---|---|---|---|
| High Prob | Low | Low | Moderate |
| Medium Prob | Low | Moderate | High |
| Low Prob | Moderate | High | Critical |
Low (1-2)
Monitor. No action in charter.
Moderate (3-4)
Include in charter. PM manages.
High (6)
Escalate to sponsor. Needs mitigation before start.
Critical (9)
Go/no-go decision. May require charter revision.
Probability and impact ratings should be data-backed, not gut feelings. Use historical project data when available.
| Rating | Probability Guide | Impact Guide |
|---|---|---|
| Low | Under 20% chance of occurring. No historical precedent in similar projects. | Schedule slip under 1 week. Budget impact under 5%. No scope change required. |
| Medium | 20 to 60% chance. Has occurred in 1 out of 3 similar projects historically. | Schedule slip 1 to 4 weeks. Budget impact 5 to 15%. Minor scope adjustment needed. |
| High | Over 60% chance. Has occurred in most similar projects. Current indicators suggest likely. | Schedule slip over 4 weeks. Budget impact over 15%. Significant scope change or project cancellation risk. |
| Industry | Risk | P | I | Severity | Charter Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT | API integration fails during production cutover | Medium | High | High | Schedule integration audit and dry-run cutover in Week 2 |
| Marketing | Campaign launch delayed by creative approval cycle | High | Low | Moderate | Set 3-day approval SLA with auto-approve clause |
| Construction | Permit approval delayed by city planning office backlog | Medium | High | High | Submit permits 4 weeks early; identify alternative sequencing |
| Healthcare | Nursing staff resistance to barcode scanning workflow | High | Medium | High | Assign clinical champion; pilot with volunteer unit first |
| Finance | Regulatory change invalidates compliance approach mid-project | Low | High | Moderate | Monthly regulatory scan; 15% contingency earmarked for re-work |
Charter Response (1 line)
"Schedule API integration audit and dry-run cutover in Week 2 to validate integration feasibility before committing to full development."
Plan Response (full mitigation)
"Week 2: API integration audit (2 days, assigned to Technical Lead). If audit identifies breaking changes: escalate to steering committee for scope adjustment. Fallback: build REST adapter as middleware layer (add 3 weeks, $18K). Week 6: dry-run cutover in staging environment. Success criteria: 99.9% data transfer accuracy, under 4 hours downtime. If dry-run fails: revert to current system, schedule root cause analysis."