Project charter, warehouse management system rollout, Kestrel Distribution

Project charter template with the scope in and out on one page

A charter exists so that a project starts with a sponsor's signature on a page that says what it is and is not. This one fits a system rollout on three pages: a measurable objective, scope in and out as two lists side by side, the team with their authority, a $341,000 budget, five milestones on a timeline and the five risks worth naming on day one.

Create a document with OneCraft3 A4 pages, editable, then download as a PDF

The document, page by page

Every page as it renders and as it prints, with nothing summarised. Read the wording before you reuse it.

Project charter WMS-01 · version 1.0
Project charter WMS-01 · version 1.0
Project charter WMS-01 · version 1.0
Kestrel Distribution · approved 5 October 2026Page 1 of 3
Kestrel Distribution · approved 5 October 2026Page 2 of 3
Kestrel Distribution · approved 5 October 2026Page 3 of 3
Project name
Warehouse system rollout
Project code
WMS-01
Version
1.0
Sponsor
Dana Okafor
Project lead
Sam Whitaker
Date approved
5 October 2026
1. Purpose and objective

Kestrel Distribution picks 9,800 orders a week from paper pick sheets at its two depots, Northgate and Riverside. This project replaces the paper with a scanning warehouse management system across receiving, put away, picking and dispatch.
Objective: pick error rate from 1.8 percent to under 0.5 percent, and average dispatch time from 41 to 25 minutes, within 3 months of go live at each depot.

2. Scope
In scope
Northgate and Riverside depots Receiving and put away Picking with handheld scanners Dispatch scanning and manifests Driver delivery app Invoicing integration
Out of scope
The third depot at Calder Park Finance integration beyond invoicing Returns processing Fleet telematics
3. Deliverables
Deliverable
Acceptance
1. Configured system, both depots
Passes the 42 case test script, no severity one defects
2. 40 scanners deployed
Every scanner connects in every racking aisle
3. Migration of 14,000 SKUs
Counts within 0.2 percent of the physical count
4. Driver app live, 26 drivers
A full delivery day run with no paper fallback
5. Trained depot teams
58 staff signed off against the role checklists
4. Team and authority
Role
Name
Authority
Sponsor
Dana Okafor, Operations Director
Budget and scope changes over $10,000
Project lead
Sam Whitaker
Day to day decisions to $10,000
Depot leads
Ines Marchetti, Rob Callahan
Go live readiness at their depot
Vendor PM
Priya Nair, Loadstone Systems
Delivery of the configured system
IT lead
Tomas Beck
Invoicing and network integration
5. Budget
6. Milestones
Licences, 3 years
$96,000
Hardware, 40 scanners
$58,000
Implementation
$120,000
Training and backfill
$36,000
Contingency, 10 percent
$31,000
Total
$341,000
5 October 2026
Charter approved
6 November 2026
Design signed off
8 February 2027
Depot 1 go live, Northgate
22 March 2027
Depot 2 go live, Riverside
30 June 2027
Benefits review
7. Risks
Risk
Likelihood
Impact
Owner
Response
Racking wifi gaps
Medium
High
IT lead
Site survey before design sign off
Driver app adoption
Medium
Medium
Depot leads
Practice runs, week one paper fallback
Peak season clash
Low
High
Project lead
Go lives held in February and March
SKU data quality
Medium
High
IT lead
Two trial migrations, worst 500 first
Key staff leave
Low
Medium
Sponsor
Two trained superusers per depot
8. Success criteria
Measure
Target
Measured
Pick error rate
Under 0.5%, from 1.8%
30 June 2027 benefits review
Average dispatch time
25 minutes, from 41
30 June 2027 benefits review
Scanner uptime
99% or better
Monthly from each go live
9. Assumptions and constraints
The invoicing system API is available as documented.
Depot leads can release staff for training on weekdays.
The racking layout does not change during the rollout.
Spend is capped at $341,000; changes go through change control.
10. Approval

By signing, the sponsor authorises the project to the budget and scope above; changes to either are issued as a new version of this charter.

Dana Okafor, Sponsor
Name
:
Position
:
Date
:
Sam Whitaker, Project lead
Name
:
Date
:

Section by section

What each section is for, so you can keep the ones you need and drop the rest.

Header block
Project name, code WMS-01, sponsor, lead, date approved and version 1.0.
Purpose and objective
The problem in two sentences, then the objective as two numbers with a date.
Scope
Six things in and four things out, as two lists side by side.
Deliverables
Five deliverables, each with a measurable acceptance test.
Team and authority
Five roles with names and what each may decide, in dollars.
Budget
Six lines with 10 percent contingency, totalling $341,000.
Milestones
Five dates on a timeline, from approval to the benefits review.
Risks
Five day one risks with likelihood, impact, owner and response.
Success criteria
Three measures with targets and the date each is measured.
Assumptions and constraints
Four lines the approval depends on, including the spend cap.
Approval
Sponsor and project lead sign side by side, with dates.

Clauses in this document

Charter versus plan versus business case

Three documents get confused at the start of a project, and each has one job. The business case argues the project should exist: options, benefits, costs, judged by whoever owns the money. The charter, this document, authorises it: the objective, the scope boundary, the budget cap, the named authority, signed by the sponsor once. The plan schedules it: tasks, dependencies, dates, owned by the project lead and rewritten as often as reality demands. A plan without a charter is a schedule for work nobody has authorised. Write the case to win the money, the charter to fix the deal, the plan to run the weeks.

How to adapt this document

For an internal process improvement with no vendor, drop the vendor row from the team table, let the budget shrink to backfill and training, and keep the authority column, because internal projects suffer most from nobody knowing who decides. For a construction project, make the signed contract a deliverable with its own acceptance row, and move the milestones to practical completion stages. For a research project, put ethics approval on the timeline before any data collection, and write the success criteria as review gates. In every variant the skeleton holds: one measurable objective, scope in and out side by side, authority with a dollar figure, a sponsor signature.

What makes this document work

The objective is two numbers with a date

Pick error rate from 1.8 percent to under 0.5 percent, and dispatch time from 41 to 25 minutes, within three months of go live. Because the objective is written as numbers with a deadline, the benefits review on 30 June 2027 is a real meeting with a pass or fail, not a discussion about how everyone feels the rollout went.

Scope in and out sit side by side

The scope section is two lists on one page: six things in, four things out. The out column names exactly what people would otherwise assume is included, the third depot, returns, fleet telematics. This is the only part of a charter anyone re-reads mid project, and here it can be read in ten seconds without hunting through prose.

The authority column carries a dollar figure

The team table does not just name people, it says the sponsor approves changes over $10,000 and the project lead decides below that alone. That number is the change control rule, sitting on page two where every argument about who approves what gets settled by pointing at it.

Questions people ask

What is the difference between a project charter and a project plan?

The charter authorises; the plan schedules. A charter is signed once by the sponsor and says what the project is, what it may spend and who decides things. The plan is the working schedule of tasks and dates that changes weekly underneath it. This example stays at charter altitude: milestones, not tasks.

Who signs a project charter?

The sponsor, because the charter is the sponsor's authority to spend handed to the project, and the project lead, because they are accepting delivery on those terms. This example ends with both blocks side by side. Nobody else signs; everyone else appears in the team table with their authority instead.

How long should a project charter be?

Two to four pages. Shorter and it will not survive its first argument, because the scope and authority detail is missing; longer and it has become the project plan wearing the wrong name. This example lands on three pages of tables, lists and short paragraphs.

What goes in the out of scope list?

The things people will assume are in unless told otherwise. Here that is the third depot, finance integration beyond invoicing, returns and fleet telematics. Writing them down at approval is far cheaper than debating them once the budget is half spent.

Should the budget be in the charter?

Yes, at summary level with contingency shown, because the sponsor is authorising the spend and the number needs to sit on the signed page. This example carries six lines totalling $341,000 with 10 percent contingency. The cost breakdown by month belongs in the plan, not here.

When is a project charter updated?

Only through change control, and as a new version rather than an edit, which is why this one carries version 1.0 in its running header. If scope or budget moves beyond the authority in the team table, the sponsor approves a version 1.1, so there is always exactly one signed truth.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make my project charter template with the scope in and out on one page

Other document examples

Want the steps in the builder? Read Create a document with AI, then Document builder components. For everything this generator can do, see the document maker.

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .