Document Comparison
The business case answers "should the organisation invest in this?" The charter answers "given that we are investing, what are the boundaries?" The plan answers "how do we execute within those boundaries?"
Updated 11 April 2026
Business Case
Should we invest?
Project Charter
What are the boundaries?
Project Plan
How do we execute?
| Dimension | Business Case | Project Charter |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Justify the investment: should we fund this? | Define boundaries: given funding, what are the constraints? |
| Timing | Before project approval (pre-charter) | After business case approval, before planning |
| Author | Business analyst, project sponsor, or finance team | Project manager (drafted), sponsor (approved) |
| Length | 3 to 10 pages (with financial analysis) | 1 to 5 pages |
| Content focus | ROI analysis, alternative options, risk-adjusted NPV, recommendation | Scope boundaries, success criteria, risk register, decision authority |
| Decision it enables | Go/no-go investment decision | Project authorisation and team assembly |
| Approval authority | Finance committee, executive sponsor, or board | Project sponsor and steering committee |
| Change frequency | Rarely updated after approval | Rarely updated (baseline document) |
For small projects (under $30K), some organisations combine the business case and charter into a single "project brief" or "lean charter with business justification." This works when: the investment is below the capital approval threshold, only one approver is needed, and the project is straightforward enough that scope boundaries are obvious.
When it creates problems: Combining the documents for projects over $50K or with multiple stakeholders confuses two distinct decisions. The approver cannot separate "Should we fund this?" from "Do I agree with the scope boundaries?" This leads to extended review cycles and scope-creep-by-committee during approval.
Investment
$200K (implementation) + $48K/year (licensing)
ROI Analysis
$320K annual productivity gain. Payback period: 8 months. 3-year NPV: $512K.
Alternatives Considered
1. Upgrade existing CRM ($85K, limited features). 2. Build custom ($400K, 18 months). 3. Do nothing ($320K annual productivity loss continues).
Recommendation
Proceed with Option 1: vendor CRM implementation at $200K with 8-month payback.
Scope Boundaries
In: Sales and CS modules for 120 users. Out: Marketing automation, custom reporting, and mobile app.
Success Criteria
80% daily active usage within 90 days. 25% reduction in sales admin time. 99.5% system uptime.
Top Risks
Data migration errors (High), user adoption resistance (Moderate), integration with billing system (Moderate).
Decision Authority
VP Sales: scope changes. PM: timeline shifts under 2 weeks. Steering committee: budget increases over $20K.