🏭 CSSGB Quest › Learn
Green Belt project charter
The project charter is the Define phase’s core deliverable. It is a written contract between the GB and the sponsoring organization that answers six questions: why this project, what is wrong, how bad is it, how much better will it get, who is involved, and by when. A poorly written charter is a frequent cause of scope creep and stalled projects.
Six charter elements
| Element | What it must contain | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Business case | Why this project matters: financial impact, customer risk, or strategic alignment | Too vague (“quality is important”); no dollar estimate |
| Problem statement | What is wrong, where, how often, and since when — no causes, no solutions | Embedding a cause (“because operators skip the step”) or solution (“we will buy new equipment”) |
| Goal statement | SMART target: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound | “Improve quality” with no number or deadline |
| Scope | Clear in-scope and out-of-scope boundaries; process start and stop points | Scope so wide the GB cannot finish in a few months |
| Team | GB, Champion, process owner, subject-matter experts | No process owner named; no Champion identified |
| Timeline | Tollgate dates for each DMAIC phase, final closure date | No dates; or entire project compressed into 3 weeks |
Worked example: ZZMedical tablet yield project
Project: Reduce Examplorphine 10 mg tablet yield loss at ZZMedical Packaging Line 2
Business case: Yield losses on Line 2 cost approximately $180,000 per year in scrapped product and rework labor. Line 2 produces 35% of total Examplorphine output. Repeated yield excursions have triggered two customer delivery delays in the past year.
Problem statement: The first-pass yield on ZZMedical Packaging Line 2 averaged 91.4% over the 12 months January–December 2025, measured at final in-process inspection. The internal target is ≥97.0%.
Goal statement: Increase Line 2 first-pass yield from 91.4% to ≥96.0% by April 30, 2026. If yield-loss cost scales with the loss rate, cutting loss from 8.6% to 4.0% saves about $180,000 × (8.6 − 4.0) / 8.6 ≈ $96,000 per year.
Scope: In scope: Tablet filling through final sealing on Line 2. Out of scope: Tablet compression, Lines 1 and 3, and label printing.
Team: GB: R. Exampl · Champion: QA Director · Process owner: Line 2 supervisor · SME: Packaging engineer
Timeline: Define – Oct 31 · Measure – Dec 15 · Analyze – Jan 31 · Improve – Mar 15 · Control – Apr 30
Business case: Yield losses on Line 2 cost approximately $180,000 per year in scrapped product and rework labor. Line 2 produces 35% of total Examplorphine output. Repeated yield excursions have triggered two customer delivery delays in the past year.
Problem statement: The first-pass yield on ZZMedical Packaging Line 2 averaged 91.4% over the 12 months January–December 2025, measured at final in-process inspection. The internal target is ≥97.0%.
Goal statement: Increase Line 2 first-pass yield from 91.4% to ≥96.0% by April 30, 2026. If yield-loss cost scales with the loss rate, cutting loss from 8.6% to 4.0% saves about $180,000 × (8.6 − 4.0) / 8.6 ≈ $96,000 per year.
Scope: In scope: Tablet filling through final sealing on Line 2. Out of scope: Tablet compression, Lines 1 and 3, and label printing.
Team: GB: R. Exampl · Champion: QA Director · Process owner: Line 2 supervisor · SME: Packaging engineer
Timeline: Define – Oct 31 · Measure – Dec 15 · Analyze – Jan 31 · Improve – Mar 15 · Control – Apr 30
Writing a valid problem statement
Test your problem statement against these five rules:
- Names a measurable metric (yield %, defect rate, cycle time, cost)?
- States the current level with a time period (last 12 months, Q3 2025)?
- States where the problem occurs (which line, process step, product)?
- No causes (“because” language)?
- No solutions (“we will” language)?
SMART goals for Green Belt projects
| Letter | Meaning | Test |
|---|---|---|
| S | Specific | Names the metric and process, not just “quality” |
| M | Measurable | Has a number: from X% to Y% |
| A | Achievable | Realistic for a GB-level project in the time allowed |
| R | Relevant | Linked to the business case (cost, customer, strategy) |
| T | Time-bound | Has a deadline: “by April 30, 2026” |
Common exam traps
- Charter is a living document. If Measure reveals the scope is wrong, update the charter — do not quietly change direction.
- Goal is not the solution. “Reduce defects to ≤1%” is a goal. “Install a vision system” is a solution. Solutions belong in Improve.
- Champion vs. process owner. The Champion approves funding and resources; the process owner accepts the handoff in Control. They are often, but not always, different people.
Test yourself
The free 20-question CSSGB diagnostic covers all six Body of Knowledge sections, with an explanation for every answer.
Take the free CSSGB diagnosticMore: DMAIC overview · VOC & CTQ · SIPOC · Fishbone & 5 Whys · Solution selection · Control plan
CSSGB Quest by Bizarre Act. Original study material; not affiliated with ASQ. CSSGB is a certification of ASQ. Terms · Privacy