| Course | MT245 Project Fundamentals and Project Initiation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Project charter |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT245 Unit 4
Nine Decisions Someone Could Object To: A Unit 4 Project Charter for the Linden Park Court Conversion
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT245: Project Fundamentals and Project Initiation
Unit 4 Project Charter
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Ashby Mills, Linden Park, the people, dates and figures are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Project: Linden Park Courts 3 and 4 Pickleball Conversion Sponsor: Director of Parks and Recreation, Town of Ashby Mills Project manager: Recreation Coordinator Date: February 3; Version 1
Purpose
The project converts Linden Park tennis courts 3 and 4, closed nineteen days last season for surface failure, into eight outdoor pickleball courts, as recommended in the approved business case. It meets reported demand from the town's pickleball players while keeping courts 1 and 2 for tennis.
Decisions
The charter records nine decisions. Each states what was chosen and what was rejected, so that anyone who disagrees can say so now.
1. Courts 3 and 4 are converted, not courts 1 and 2, because 3 and 4 carry the worst cracking and 1 and 2 serve the high school team.
2. Eight pickleball courts are built rather than six, because the surface area allows eight at published dimensions and the club's waiting list supports them.
3. Nets are permanent, not portable, to avoid storage and set-up conflicts.
4. Lighting is excluded; evening play under lights would need a separate project, a neighborhood hearing and a different budget.
5. Divider fencing four feet high separates court pairs, rather than full-height fencing, to keep sight lines open for supervision.
6. Acoustic panels are added on the north fence facing Orchard Lane, rather than relying on distance alone.
7. The pickleball club is consulted on the court layout and rules signs but has no approval role.
8. The recreation coordinator may approve any single change up to $5,000 without the director, provided the total stays within budget.
9. The surfacing contractor selected through the town's bid process is retained for design and construction, rather than splitting design to a separate firm.
A decision written with the option it rejected is a decision someone can still challenge before it costs money.
Objectives
The project has three objectives, each testable at handover.
Eight courts meeting the published dimensions and net heights of the sport's official rules, open for play by May 15
Total cost within the authorized $175,000, including the contractor's quote of $171,400
An accessible route from the parking lot to the court gate meeting the town's accessibility standards
Summary Milestones
February: charter signed; contractor takes core samples of the asphalt base
March: state grant application submitted; council confirms the appropriation
April: construction begins once air temperatures permit acrylic work
Early May: surfacing, lines, nets and fencing complete; accessible path poured
May 15: courts open
Authority
The authority table sets out who decides what.
Director of Parks and Recreation, sponsor: approves the charter, any change over $5,000, any change to scope or the opening date
Recreation coordinator, project manager: runs the project day to day; approves changes up to $5,000 within budget; reports monthly to the director
Town council: appropriates the $150,000 and accepts the state grant; not involved in day-to-day decisions
Finance director: confirms funds before contracts are signed
Public works superintendent: approves any work affecting drainage or the parking lot
Larson and Gray (2021) note that unclear authority is among the most common reasons projects stall, because changes wait for someone willing to approve them. The $5,000 threshold lets the coordinator handle small problems, such as an extra crack repair, without delay.
Risks Known at Initiation
Three risks are known at signing and are recorded here so the director accepts them knowingly. The contractor's quote assumes a sound asphalt base; if the core samples show otherwise, the project returns to the director before any contract is signed. The quote of $171,400 exceeds the council's $150,000, so the project depends on the state grant of up to $40,000; without it, the project reduces to six courts. And acrylic surfacing needs air temperatures of at least 50 degrees and rising, so a cold April could push the opening past May 15.
What the Charter Does Not Decide
The charter leaves three questions for later documents: the detailed exclusions, which the scope statement will set out; the full list of stakeholders and how each will be engaged; and whether the project is feasible on the budget and schedule above, which a feasibility assessment will test before construction is approved.
Stakeholders
The main stakeholder groups are the town council, public works, the pickleball club, the adult tennis association, Orchard Lane neighbors, the town's accessibility coordinator, the state grant program and the surfacing contractor. A full stakeholder register will follow as a separate document. Mitchell et al. (1997) argue that stakeholders differ in power, legitimacy and urgency, and the register will rank them on those three attributes.
Approval
The charter takes effect when signed by the Director of Parks and Recreation, who by signing authorizes the recreation coordinator to manage the project and spend within the limits above. Under the PMI (2021) standard, this signature is what turns a proposal into a project and lets its manager commit the department's people and money.
Signature: ______________________ Director of Parks and Recreation Date: ____________
References
Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2021). Project management: The managerial process (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
What the MT245 Unit 4 assignment asks for
Unit 4 asks students to write a charter that formally authorizes a project and gives its manager authority to act. The prompt usually expects a title block, a short purpose tied to the business case, objectives that can be tested at handover, summary milestones, an authority statement, stakeholder groups and a sponsor's signature. Stronger charters record key decisions with the alternatives rejected, so that disagreement surfaces before work starts. A spending threshold for the project manager prevents small changes from waiting on the sponsor. Name known risks and the questions the charter leaves to later documents. Charters at this level usually run about three pages and read like a form the sponsor will sign, with the course text and a project standard behind the wording.
How this MT245 Unit 4 example is built
The charter opens with a title block naming the project, sponsor, manager, date and version, and a two-sentence purpose. Nine numbered decisions follow, each with its rejected option, and the highlighted line explains why that matters, with a margin note on objecting to a specific decision. Three objectives are stated with handover tests. Summary milestones run from February core samples to a May 15 opening. The authority table assigns approvals to the sponsor, project manager, council, finance director and public works, with Larson and Gray on unclear authority. Known risks and the questions left for later documents come next, then stakeholder groups with Mitchell and colleagues, and the PMBOK Guide on authorization before a signature line closes it.
Where the points sit in the MT245 Unit 4 rubric
A charter earns credit for authorizing clearly, stating testable objectives, assigning authority and surfacing decisions early. Objectives should be measurable at handover, such as a court count, a cost ceiling and a date, not general aims. Graders reward an authority table that says who approves what, including a threshold for the project manager. Recording decisions with their rejected alternatives shows the writer understands the charter's role in surfacing disagreement. Naming known risks and what the charter does not settle shows realism. A sponsor signature line confirms the document is an authorization. Concise formatting, consistency with the business case and correct references round out the grade. A charter that a sponsor could read and sign in ten minutes shows the writer understands its purpose.
MT245 Unit 4 help from the desk
Students most often produce a charter that tells the project's story in paragraphs and never says who may approve what. Another is objectives that cannot be tested, such as improving recreation. Some students omit the sponsor's signature, which leaves the charter as a proposal. Others copy the business case's argument instead of recording the decisions it led to. Keep figures consistent with the business case, especially the cost ceiling, and date the version so later corrections can be tracked. Send us your approved business case and sponsor's name, and a writer can draft a charter with decisions, objectives and an authority table to match.
Get an MT245 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
A charter can only settle arguments that belong to the assigned scenario. Paste in that scenario together with the grading rubric, the Unit 4 instructions and whatever charter template the course uses. Delivered free inside 24-48h, the first charter states its decisions plainly enough for someone to disagree with them before signing. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT245 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT245 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT245 Unit 2: Project Classification Exercise
- MT245 Unit 3: Business Case
- MT245 Unit 5: Scope Statement
- MT245 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT245 Unit 7: Stakeholder Register
- MT245 Unit 8: Feasibility Assessment
- MT245 Unit 9: Assumption and Constraint Log
- MT245 Unit 10: Initiation Package
- MT243 Unit 4: Audience Profile
- MT242 Unit 4: Facility Allocation Plan
- MT241 Unit 4: Player Comparison Report
- MT240 Unit 4: Labor and Compensation Study
MT245 Unit 4 questions, answered
Why write decisions into a charter?
Because a charter authorizes, and authorizing means choosing. Listing the choices near the top lets stakeholders object before signing rather than months later, when changing course costs more. Each of the example's nine decisions names the alternative it rejected, which shows the choice was considered and gives the sponsor something concrete to approve.
Where does a town council fit in a project charter?
Usually above the sponsor, as the body that appropriated the money. The director can authorize work within the approved amount, but an increase needs the council. The example writes that limit into its authority table, so neither the coordinator nor the director appears to hold power the town has not given them.
Should the charter name every stakeholder?
Not in detail. A charter typically lists the main groups affected and leaves a full register, with interests and influence, to a separate document. The example names groups such as neighbors, the pickleball club and public works in a short list, and points forward to the register built later in the course.
Where can I find a free MT245 Unit 4 sample paper?
The whole MT245 Unit 4 project charter is printed here. It records nine decisions with their rejected options, three testable objectives, an authority table with a $5,000 threshold and a signature block for the sponsor.
Why does the MT245 Unit 4 charter give the coordinator a $5,000 limit?
So small problems, such as an extra crack repair, can be approved at once without waiting for the director, while anything larger or any change to scope or dates still goes to the sponsor.