Complete a Project Charter v1 draft for your own project using the blank template.
Check your draft’s completeness against the synthetic filled example (SYN-CS-001).
Exchange peer review, revise per the submission checklist, and log what changed.
Template, Example, and Review
40 min
Download the Template and Example
This workshop uses three public downloads: a blank template, a synthetic filled example, and a submission checklist, plus a behavior-anchors reference for comparison.
1Step 1 Compare against the filled example to understand how complete each field needs to be, rather than copying its content verbatim.
2Step 2 Use your Module 2-4 outputs (process map, baseline log, metric card, scope and dependency list) to fill in the blank template as Charter v1.
3Step 3 If your project is a synthetic exercise (no real enterprise sponsor), mark the sponsor field as a "synthetic exercise role"; never pretend it is a real approval.
Key takeaway: The example is a reference for checking completeness, not something to copy and paste; a charter’s value lies in how well it fits your own project’s real state and numbers.
50 min
Peer Review and a Revision Log
After completing your Charter v1 draft, exchange it with another learner for review. The reviewer checks it against the submission checklist item by item, and gives at least one field a specific, actionable suggestion (not a vague comment like "looks good").
Example revision-log format
Field
v1 content
Reviewer comment
v2 revision
Success metrics
Efficiency improved 30%
Missing unit, source, and estimate label (see the Module 3 example)
Average handling time for a knowledge Q&A case (minutes/case), source baseline_log.csv, an estimate
Go/No-Go criteria
It depends
Cannot tell whether it has been met; not an assessable condition
Rewritten with the quantified conditions from decision_examples/proceed.md
Done
Making one meaningful revision (not a wording tweak, but filling a verifiable gap) matters more than trying to write a perfect first draft; the v1-to-v2 revision log itself becomes evidence for Module 6’s simulated review.
Warning
Reminder: if the review material involves a real company’s process or data, treat it as sensitive: keep it only in a managed location, follow the project’s data-retention policy, and never enter company secrets, customer personal data, or unauthorized sensitive information.
Check yourself
A peer reviewer only says "this charter looks good." What is the problem with this feedback for revision?
Key takeaway: Peer review exists to catch "sounds reasonable but cannot be verified" content before the formal gate review; it is your last chance to fix it before Module 6’s simulated chartering review.
