PRINCE2 Foundation (PRINCE2) key terms

A principle requiring that a valid reason to start and continue the project exists, is documented, and is re-checked at each decision point so work stops if the reason disappears.

A principle requiring teams to seek out lessons from similar work and from earlier stages, record them, and act on them rather than repeating known mistakes.

A principle stating that every project needs an explicit organisational structure with agreed roles, so it is clear who decides, who delivers, and who represents user interests.

A principle that divides the project into sequential chunks of work, each authorised and reviewed before the next begins, so control is exercised at manageable intervals rather than over one large block.

A principle giving each management level a defined tolerance within which the level below may act freely, escalating only when a forecast breach is likely.

A principle requiring the method to be adapted in scale and formality to the project's size, risk, complexity, and organisational setting, while keeping the principles intact.

The theme and document that capture the reasons for the project, the expected benefits, costs, risks, and timescale, and provide the basis for judging whether the project remains worthwhile.

A plan defining which benefits will be measured, how and when measurement happens, and who is responsible, often extending beyond project closure into operational use.

The theme defining the project's structure of accountable roles and the relationships between them, including the board, the project manager, team managers, and any supporting assurance functions.

The group accountable for the project's success, comprising business, user, and supplier interests, which authorises initiation, stage boundaries, and closure and takes decisions on escalations.

The single individual on the project board ultimately accountable for the project, who owns the business case and ensures the project delivers outcomes that represent value for money.

The project board role accountable for specifying the needs of those who will use the outputs and for confirming that the delivered products meet those needs and enable the expected benefits.

The project board role accountable for the quality and technical integrity of the specialist work and for the resources committed by the supplier side of the project.

An independent monitoring and advisory responsibility, held by individuals appointed by each board member, that checks the project is being run correctly on that member's behalf.

The theme covering how the project will move from where it is to where it wants to be, expressed through a hierarchy of plans that state products, activities, resources, and timescales.

A technique that starts by identifying and describing the required products, then derives activities, dependencies, and resources from them, rather than planning activities first.

A statement of a product's purpose, composition, derivation, quality criteria, and quality method, used to make quality expectations explicit before the work is done.

The theme defining how the project will specify what counts as acceptable, how it will verify that products meet those specifications, and who holds the related responsibilities.

A log recording planned and completed quality activities, including who is responsible, the method to be used, and the outcome, giving a single view of quality progress.

A structured, documented approach in which a small team examines a product against agreed quality criteria, with defined roles, preparation, and a recorded result.

The theme covering how uncertainty that could affect objectives is identified, assessed, and controlled, including the assignment of owners and the maintenance of a risk register.

The named individual responsible for managing a particular risk, including implementing the agreed response and reporting on how the risk is developing.

The theme covering how requests to alter baselined products or specifications are captured, assessed for impact, decided upon, and implemented in a controlled way.

A log of all issues and changes raised on the project, recording their type, severity, current status, and the action being taken, so nothing is lost or duplicated.

The theme concerned with monitoring actual achievement against the plan and comparing it with what was authorised, so that deviations are detected and decisions can be taken.

The permitted amount of deviation from planned targets for time, cost, scope, quality, risk, or benefit that a delegated level may accept without escalating to the level above.

A report produced when a forecast breach of tolerance is identified, describing the situation, its cause, the likely impact, and the options available to the receiving level.

A plan prepared to replace the remainder of an existing plan after a forecast tolerance breach has been escalated, showing how recovery to the original targets will be achieved.

The first process, which assembles the minimum viable team, captures lessons and the project's rationale, and prepares the information needed for the board to authorise initiation.

The trigger for starting a project, providing sufficient information about the need and the intended response to allow the preparatory work of starting up to begin.

A document produced during starting up that states the project's background, objectives, expected benefits, scope, and constraints, forming the basis for the initiation document.

The process that establishes the project's baseline by building the business case, plans, controls, and documentation, culminating in the board's authorisation to deliver.

The collection of documents that defines the project's baseline for decision-making, typically including the business case, plans, roles, controls, and approach, and which is updated at stage boundaries.

The board-level process of authorising initiation, stage boundaries, and closure, giving ad hoc direction, and taking decisions escalated through exception management.

The project manager's process for authorising work packages, monitoring progress and issues, and taking corrective action within delegated tolerances during a management stage.

The agreed instruction to a team to produce one or more products, specifying requirements, constraints, tolerances, reporting needs, and who will accept the finished output.

The process through which a team accepts a work package, executes the specialist work, and reports progress and completion back to the controlling level.

The process used at the end of a management stage to review performance, update the business case and plans, and seek authorisation for the next stage.

The board's review, informed by the stage boundary information, that decides whether to approve the next stage plan, amend the project, or stop the project.

The process of confirming acceptance of the final products, evaluating the project against its baseline, handing over responsibilities, and recording lessons before disbanding the team.

A description of how the specialist work will be delivered, covering the delivery methods, techniques, tools, and in-house or outsourced arrangements selected for the project.