Project Charter Peer Review: Reengineering Selling - University Report

This report presents a peer review of a Reengineering Selling Project Charter, evaluating various aspects of the document. The review begins with an assessment of the project charter's scope, followed by section-by-section comments, covering the introduction, project goals, objectives, scope, requirements, Gantt charts, stakeholder identification, and budget estimation. The reviewer analyzes the overall layout, structure, and grammar, pointing out strengths and weaknesses, such as the clarity of the charter's purpose, the proper inclusion of headings and subheadings, and the alignment of goals and objectives. Positive aspects include clear goals, objectives, and deliverables. Negative comments include unclear client introduction, misalignment of goals and objectives, and structural issues regarding the order of sections. The report concludes with final feedback and recommendations for improvement, emphasizing the need for revisions based on the negative comments to enhance the charter's overall quality and effectiveness.

Running head: PEER REVIEW
Peer Review: Reengineering Selling Project Charter
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1PEER REVIEW
Table of Contents
1. Scope of the Review....................................................................................................................2
2. Section by Section Comments.....................................................................................................2
3. Overall Layout.............................................................................................................................3
4. Structure.......................................................................................................................................3
5. Grammar......................................................................................................................................4
6. Presentation..................................................................................................................................4
7. Positive and Negative Comments................................................................................................4
8. Final Feedback/Recommendations..............................................................................................5

2PEER REVIEW
1. Scope of the Review
The review scope is to check the content presented into the project charter of
Reengineering Selling Project. This paper demonstrates the reviewing with section-by-section
comments, overall layout discussion, structure and grammar checking, overall presentation
discussion, positive and negative comments, and final feedback.
2. Section by Section Comments
The first section “purpose of project charter” clearly states about the project charter
purpose. “Introduction about charter, client and company background” is properly demonstrated.
However, the client introduction is not clear about the motivation towards the project. The
company background clearly depicts their requirements. Project “goals, objectives, and scope”
are written properly with specific aspects that should be met with project outcomes. The goals
are included more than primary aspect of client engagement; therefore, the objectives should be
revised accordingly. Goals are listed as focusing on client, speed, compression, flexibility,
quality, and productivity. Therefore, the objectives should include all these goals for better
visibility and clarity. Scope is clearly discussed with all necessary points. The “project
requirements” are mentioned as in form of deliverables.
Furthermore, the deliverables are listed in form of “work breakdown structure”. “Gantt
charts” and “timelines” are presented for both projects; “client requirement analysis” and
“milestone” are shown in chart. “Assumptions, constraints, risks, and mitigation” is shown with
suitability. The “stakeholder identification” is conducted with individual names; contact mail ID,
and company names and responsibilities are listed after the identification. The estimation of

3PEER REVIEW
budget is performed in an appropriate manner considering all constraints as wages per hour and
stage wise wages. However, the budget estimation is performed in short for infrastructure cost;
there should be detailed item wise costing and budget plan.
3. Overall Layout
As per overall layout of project charter; the headings and sub-headings of the content is
clearly included. The headings and sub-headings are shown with all parts such as graphs, charts,
and tables as well. Generally, entire project charter is performed in tabular format; however,
report format project charter is also acceptable.
4. Structure
The project charter structure is followed properly; however, some sections are placed in
wrong order. The structure should be as following: introduction (charter introduction, company
and client background); project goals, objectives, and scope; project assumptions, constraints,
identified risks and contingency planning; project requirement / deliverables (revised if any),
client requirement analysis, work breakdown structure, Gantt chart, timeline; stakeholder
identification and responsibility assignment; and budget planning and estimation. However, this
particular project charter produced project assumptions, constraints, identified risks and
contingency planning; after project requirement / deliverables (revised if any), client requirement
analysis, work breakdown structure, Gantt chart, timeline part. There are several chances of
including risks and issues regarding assumptions in the activity scheduling process. The
assumptions, constraints, and risks identification can revise some of the project deliverables on
certain circumstances. Sometimes, the timeline could be adjusted for certain risks and problems.

4PEER REVIEW
If the project assumptions, constraints, identified risks and contingency planning; activity is
presented before the scheduling. Then project requirement / deliverables (revised if any), client
requirement analysis, work breakdown structure, Gantt chart, timeline; scheduling tasks could be
performed without unnecessary risks.
5. Grammar
In the entire content of write-up, there are some mistakes regarding spelling, sentence
construction, and spacing. For instance, in “introduction” section, the sentence “To design a
definite system which can the utilization of company’s products” sounds like question not
statement. In “project background” section, the sentence “We must recodify the existing business
process”; here, recodify is wrong word. Otherwise, entire write-up is appropriate with the
content.
6. Presentation
The presentation of the content is properly performed with all headings and sub-headings
mentioned. The write-up includes graphs, charts, and tables; however, the graphs, charts, and
tables should include proper captioning.
7. Positive and Negative Comments
The positive comments in the report stated that purpose of the charter is clear. The goals,
scope and objectives are clear with specific parts. Requirements, deliverables are mentioned
clearly. Gantt chart, timeline, and work breakdown structure is clearly mentioned. Stakeholder

5PEER REVIEW
identification is mentioned with considering all aspects. Budget estimation is followed with
proper format.
The negative comments in the report stated that client introduction is not clear and it does
not include motivations. The goals and objectives are not clearly aligned with each other.
Infrastructure cost is not depicted in-depth with all aspects of items. The structure should
consider assumptions part before scheduling activity in the study. The content has spelling,
grammatical mistakes at some parts.
8. Final Feedback/Recommendations
In overall, the charter should follow positive aspects and should maintain the format,
structure, layout and descriptions. Moreover, the charter should be amended and revised
considering the negative comments mentioned.