Project Charter - UNF Football Team Launch
Team Information
Note: This Project Charter is standardized for all teams. All groups start from the same baseline. Your planning decisions in the subsequent tabs will differentiate your approach.
1. Project Overview
| Project Title | Launch of UNF Ospreys Football Program |
| Project Manager | Athletic Director - UNF Athletics Department |
| Sponsor | University President & Board of Trustees |
| Start Date | January 2, 2026 |
| Target Completion | August 25, 2027 (First game day) |
| Budget Range | $3.5M - $4.2M (including startup and Year 1 operations) |
2. Project Justification
UNF is the only public university in Florida without a football program. Peer institutions have demonstrated that football programs:
- Increase student enrollment by 8-12%
- Boost alumni engagement and donations by 25-40%
- Enhance campus spirit and student life quality
- Generate revenue through ticket sales, sponsorships, and media rights
- Provide opportunities for 80-100 student-athletes with scholarships
3. Project Objectives
| Objective | Success Criteria |
|---|---|
| Establish FCS-level football program | NCAA compliance and conference membership approval |
| Build necessary infrastructure | Stadium with 12,000 capacity, practice facilities, locker rooms |
| Recruit coaching staff and players | Head coach + 9 assistants; 75 recruited players for Year 1 |
| Launch inaugural season | 10-game schedule for Fall 2027 |
| Achieve financial sustainability | 50% cost recovery through revenues in Year 1 |
4. Key Stakeholders
| Stakeholder Group | Interest/Requirements | Influence Level |
|---|---|---|
| University Administration | ROI, academic standards, NCAA compliance | High |
| Current Students | Campus experience, no tuition increase | Medium-High |
| Alumni | School pride, game attendance opportunities | Medium |
| Local Community | Economic impact, traffic/noise concerns | Medium |
| NCAA & ASUN Conference | Regulatory compliance, competitive balance | High |
| Donors & Sponsors | Naming rights, brand visibility, ROI | High |
5. Project Scope
In Scope:
- Stadium renovation/expansion (existing Hodges Stadium)
- Construction of practice facility, locker rooms, and weight room
- Recruitment and hiring of coaching staff (10 coaches)
- Player recruitment (target: 75 players)
- Equipment procurement (uniforms, helmets, training equipment)
- NCAA compliance and conference membership applications
- Marketing and branding campaign
- Ticket sales system and fan engagement programs
- Medical and training staff hiring
- Schedule development (10 games for inaugural season)
Out of Scope:
- New standalone stadium (using existing Hodges Stadium)
- Academic support programs (already exist for student-athletes)
- Year 2+ operations (only inaugural season included)
- Other sports program modifications
6. Major Constraints
| Constraint Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Time |
• Must launch by Fall 2027 (fixed date) • NCAA requires 2-year advance notice for conference play • Construction must avoid Spring 2027 (baseball/soccer season) |
| Budget |
• Total budget cap: $4.2M (no overruns permitted) • 60% from donors/sponsors, 40% from university reserves • Fundraising target: $2.5M (currently $1.8M secured) |
| Resources |
• Limited athletic department staff (must hire project coordinator) • Shared facilities with existing sports during construction • Competition for coaching talent from established programs |
| Regulatory |
• NCAA Division I FCS requirements • ASUN Conference membership approval needed • City zoning and noise ordinances for stadium |
7. Key Assumptions
- ASUN Conference will approve membership by June 2026
- Fundraising will reach $2.5M by December 2026
- Construction permits will be approved within 60 days
- Head coach hire will attract quality assistant coaches and recruits
- Existing Hodges Stadium can be renovated to meet NCAA standards
- Local community will support the program (minimal opposition)
8. Initial Known Risks
| Risk | Probability | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Fundraising shortfall | Medium | High |
| Construction delays | Medium | High |
| Difficulty recruiting top coaching talent | Medium | Medium |
| NCAA/Conference approval delays | Low | Very High |
| Community opposition to stadium expansion | Low-Medium | Medium |
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
Instructions: Create a detailed WBS for the UNF Football Program launch. Include at least 3 levels. Consider all major deliverables: infrastructure, staffing, compliance, marketing, and operations setup.
Evaluation Tip: A comprehensive WBS should have 5-8 major deliverables (Level 1), with each broken down into 3-5 sub-deliverables (Level 2), and work packages where appropriate (Level 3). Consider deliverables like: Infrastructure, Staffing, Compliance, Marketing, Operations, Equipment, Schedule Development.
Project Estimates - Time, Cost, and Resources
Instructions: For each major activity, provide estimates for duration, cost, and required resources. Be realistic and consider the constraints from the charter.
Activity Estimation Table
| # | Activity Name | Duration (days) | Cost ($) | Resources Needed | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOTALS | 0 days | $0 | - | ||
Budget Constraint Check: Total cost must not exceed $4.2M. Current total: $0
Project Network & Schedule
Instructions: Define activity dependencies and create a project network. Identify the critical path and calculate slack for non-critical activities.
Activity Dependencies
| # | Activity ID | Activity Name | Predecessors | Duration (days) | ES | EF | LS | LF | Slack | Action |
|---|
Critical Path Analysis
Risk Analysis & Management
Instructions: Identify at least 8-10 risks specific to this project. For each risk, assess probability and impact, calculate risk score, and develop response strategies.
Risk Register
Risk Summary & Mitigation Strategy
Project Plan Summary & Export
This summary consolidates all your planning work. Review carefully before exporting. The exported PDF will be used for peer evaluation.
Team Information
Team Name: -
Members: -
📊 WBS Summary
Level 1 Deliverables: 0
Level 2 Sub-deliverables: 0
Level 3 Work Packages: 0
Total WBS Items: 0
⏱️ Estimates Summary
Total Activities Defined: 0
Total Duration: 0 days
Total Estimated Cost: $0
Budget Utilization: 0% of $4.2M cap
🔗 Network Summary
Dependencies Defined: 0
Critical Path Length: - days
Critical Path Activities: -
⚠️ Risk Summary
Total Risks Identified: 0
High Priority Risks: 0
Medium Priority Risks: 0
Low Priority Risks: 0
Before Exporting: Ensure all sections are complete. The PDF will include all tabs except this summary page. Use "Save Progress" to create a backup of your work before exporting.
Peer Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Instructions: After all teams present their plans, use these criteria to evaluate each team (including your own). Rate each criterion on a scale of 1-5.
| Criterion | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| WBS Completeness |
• Comprehensive coverage of all project areas • Proper hierarchical structure (3 levels) • Clear and specific deliverables • 5-8 major deliverables with appropriate breakdown |
15 pts |
| Estimation Accuracy |
• Realistic time estimates • Cost estimates aligned with budget constraints • Resource assignments are logical • Stays within $4.2M budget |
15 pts |
| Network & Schedule Logic |
• Dependencies are logical and complete • Critical path correctly identified • Slack calculations are accurate • Schedule is feasible within timeline (Aug 2027) |
20 pts |
| Risk Management Depth |
• 8-10 relevant risks identified • Probability & impact assessments are reasonable • Response strategies are actionable and specific • Addresses high-priority risks comprehensively |
20 pts |
| Integration & Consistency |
• WBS items align with activities and network • Estimates are consistent across sections • Risks relate to actual project activities • Overall plan is cohesive |
15 pts |
| Professional Presentation |
• Clear and organized documentation • Proper use of PM terminology • Attention to detail • Presentation quality and communication |
10 pts |
| Innovation & Insights |
• Creative solutions to project challenges • Strategic thinking evident • Demonstrates deep understanding • Goes beyond basic requirements |
5 pts |
| TOTAL POSSIBLE | 100 pts | |
Evaluation Form
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| WBS Completeness (×3) | 0 | |
| Estimation Accuracy (×3) | 0 | |
| Network & Schedule Logic (×4) | 0 | |
| Risk Management Depth (×4) | 0 | |
| Integration & Consistency (×3) | 0 | |
| Professional Presentation (×2) | 0 | |
| Innovation & Insights (×1) | 0 | |
| TOTAL SCORE | 0/100 | |