What a Highlight Report must do
Turn status into controlled attention.
A Highlight Report is not a diary of work completed. It is a periodic control report from the Project Manager to the Project Board. Its job is to show the current position, forecast the likely outcome and identify where delegated authority is no longer enough.
Position
Where is the project against its approved baseline?Forecast
Will the project remain within delegated tolerance?Movement
What has changed since the previous report?Response
What is being done about adverse variance or exposure?Decision
What does the Project Board need to decide or enable?Every status must be supported by evidence, trend and forecast. A project can appear green today while already forecasting a future tolerance breach. Report the forecast, not the comfort of the current date.
Do not write “for discussion” when authority, funding, priority or direction is required. State the recommendation, decision owner, deadline and consequence of delay.
Copyable Highlight Report template
Report against the controlled baseline.
Copy this structure into Word or your organisation's approved template. Replace every prompt with project-specific evidence, remove drafting guidance and apply the reporting thresholds agreed in the PID, Stage Plan and communication approach.
Document details
[Insert the controlling programme, or state not applicable]
[Insert approved project name]
[Insert controlled project reference]
[Insert the stage covered by this report]
[Insert name and role]
[Insert name and role]
[Insert sequential report reference]
[Insert start date to end date]
[Insert date and time where necessary]
[Insert Project Board review date]
[Insert classification]
[Red, amber or green under the agreed rules]
Report control
| Version | Date | Prepared by | Quality review | Approved for issue by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Version] | [Date] | [Name] | [Name and date] | [Name and date] |
1. Reference information and status rules
Define what each status means before using it.
The original report structure uses red, amber and green. The project must define those colours against agreed tolerances and decision needs. Colour without a threshold invites political reporting.
RAG status criteria
| Status | Minimum control meaning | Required response |
|---|---|---|
| Green | Forecast remains within delegated tolerance and no material Board intervention is required. | Continue delivery and monitor assumptions, trend and early warnings. |
| Amber | Tolerance is threatened, confidence is weakening or a material decision may be needed before the next report. | Apply recovery action, expose the decision deadline and increase monitoring. |
| Red | A tolerance breach is forecast or immediate Board direction, authority or intervention is required. | Escalate with options, recommendation, consequences and a decision request. |
[State whether cost, time, scope, quality, benefits, risk, sustainability or other approved dimensions are reported.]
[State how the overall RAG is determined from the individual dimensions.]
[Improving, stable or deteriorating since the previous report.]
[State confidence in the forecast and any weak evidence.]
Reference and reporting rules scrutiny questions
- Is the project, stage and reporting period unmistakably identified?
- Is the report number and review date controlled?
- Is the reporting frequency agreed with the Project Board?
- Are the information cut-off date and evidence sources clear?
- Are RAG thresholds defined before the status is assigned?
- Does the overall status reflect the worst material forecast, rather than an average?
2. Key milestone table
Show the dates that change the decision.
Include stage boundaries, approvals, product acceptances, procurement events, transition points and other milestones that matter to control. Minor task dates belong in the plan.
| ID | Milestone | Owner | Baseline date | Forecast or actual date | Variance | Status and trend | Recovery or decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [M1] | [Decision-relevant milestone] | [Name] | [Date] | [Date] | [Days or weeks] | [RAG and trend] | [Action or decision required] |
| [M2] | [Decision-relevant milestone] | [Name] | [Date] | [Date] | [Days or weeks] | [RAG and trend] | [Action or decision required] |
| [M3] | [Decision-relevant milestone] | [Name] | [Date] | [Date] | [Days or weeks] | [RAG and trend] | [Action or decision required] |
Milestones and status scrutiny questions
- Are the milestones decision-relevant rather than a list of minor tasks?
- Is each baseline date taken from the current approved plan?
- Is forecast separated from actual completion?
- Does every adverse variance have an owner, recovery action and decision date?
- Is the direction of travel visible?
- Would a likely tolerance breach be visible before it occurs?
3. Period summary
Give the Board the whole control story first.
Write this section last. It should be a short, decision-ready account of current position, movement, forecast and action.
[State the overall status and whether the stage and project remain forecast within tolerance.]
[State what changed, why it changed and whether the position is improving or deteriorating.]
[State the accepted output, milestone or outcome that materially advanced the project.]
[State the issue, risk, dependency or decision most likely to affect viability or tolerance.]
[State the action under way, owner, deadline and expected effect.]
[State the exact decision, direction, authority or support required and by when.]
Period summary scrutiny questions
- Can a Board member understand the project position in under two minutes?
- Does the summary explain why the status has changed?
- Are forecast breaches distinguished from historical delay?
- Are the consequences for the Business Case and benefits explicit?
- Are recovery actions and confidence levels stated?
- Is the exact Board decision or support required visible?
4. Deliverables and achievements this period
Compare commitment with accepted result.
Report delivery against what was promised in the previous period. Completion claims should reference acceptance or other objective evidence.
| Commitment | Result this period | Acceptance evidence | Variance and impact | Action and owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Planned product or achievement] | [Delivered, partly delivered or missed] | [Approval, acceptance or evidence reference] | [Cause and consequence] | [Recovery action, owner and date] |
| [Planned product or achievement] | [Delivered, partly delivered or missed] | [Approval, acceptance or evidence reference] | [Cause and consequence] | [Recovery action, owner and date] |
| [Planned product or achievement] | [Delivered, partly delivered or missed] | [Approval, acceptance or evidence reference] | [Cause and consequence] | [Recovery action, owner and date] |
Meetings held, workshops completed and documents drafted are not automatically progress. Explain which controlled product, decision, capability or outcome moved forward.
5. Deliverables and achievements planned for next period
Create commitments the next report can test.
| Planned commitment | Acceptance measure | Owner | Due date | Dependency or assumption | Board support required |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Specific deliverable or achievement] | [How completion will be evidenced] | [Name] | [Date] | [Dependency or assumption] | [Decision, action or none] |
| [Specific deliverable or achievement] | [How completion will be evidenced] | [Name] | [Date] | [Dependency or assumption] | [Decision, action or none] |
| [Specific deliverable or achievement] | [How completion will be evidenced] | [Name] | [Date] | [Dependency or assumption] | [Decision, action or none] |
Delivery commitments scrutiny questions
- Are completed products supported by acceptance evidence?
- Are planned but missed commitments disclosed?
- Does the report explain the cause and impact of each material delay?
- Are next-period commitments specific, owned and dated?
- Are dependencies and decision deadlines visible?
- Can the next report test whether the commitments were met?
6 to 8. Issues and risks
Elevate exposure that changes governance.
The Highlight Report is not a duplicate of the Issue Log or Risk Register. Extract the items requiring Board awareness, decision or action during this or the next reporting period.
6. Outstanding project issues
| ID | Issue and impact | Owner | Current action | Target date | Board decision or support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Issue ID] | [Current event and consequence] | [Name] | [Action under way] | [Date] | [Decision, direction or none] |
7. Outstanding project risks
| ID | Risk and impact | Residual rating | Trend | Owner | Response | Board attention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Risk ID] | [Cause, uncertain event and impact] | [Rating] | [Improving, stable or deteriorating] | [Name] | [Current response and date] | [Decision, acceptance or none] |
8. New or emerging issues and risks
[Summarise newly identified or rapidly changing items that may require Board attention before the next report. Include the source, initial assessment, immediate containment and owner.]
[State any weak signal, trigger or assumption being monitored, even where full assessment is not yet complete.]
Issues and risks scrutiny questions
- Are issues separated from risks?
- Are only material current or near-term exposures elevated to the Board?
- Does every issue and risk have a named owner?
- Are residual exposure and trend visible for risks?
- Is the escalation threshold consistent with the agreed tolerances?
- Does each escalated item state the decision, direction or support required?
9 and 10. Lessons, decisions and actions
Convert learning and escalation into action.
9. Lessons identified this period
| Lesson | Evidence | Change to approach or control | Owner | Due date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [What has been learned] | [Observation or evidence] | [What will change] | [Name] | [Date] |
10. Decisions or actions required of the Project Board
| ID | Decision required | Recommendation | Options or trade-off | Decision owner | Required by | Consequence of delay |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [D01] | [State the exact approval or direction required] | [State the recommended decision] | [Summarise credible alternatives and consequences] | [Role or Board] | [Date] | [Impact if not decided] |
Previous Board actions
| Action ID | Action | Owner | Due date | Status | Evidence or next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [A01] | [Action agreed previously] | [Name] | [Date] | [Open, complete or overdue] | [Evidence or recovery] |
Decisions and Board actions scrutiny questions
- Is every request written as a decision rather than a topic for discussion?
- Does each request include a recommendation and decision deadline?
- Are the consequences of delay stated?
- Is the accountable decision maker identified?
- Are previous Board actions tracked to closure?
- Can the minutes record the decision without rewriting the request?
11 and 12. Budget and change impact
Report forecast outturn, not spend alone.
Cost to date can look healthy while the forecast has already moved outside tolerance. Reconcile the report with the approved financial baseline and expose the cost and schedule effect of material changes.
11. Budget position
| Cost category | Approved baseline | Actual to date | Forecast to complete | Forecast outturn | Variance | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal resources | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value and percentage] | [RAG and trend] |
| External suppliers | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value and percentage] | [RAG and trend] |
| Technology or assets | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value and percentage] | [RAG and trend] |
| Change and training | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value and percentage] | [RAG and trend] |
| Contingency | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value and percentage] | [RAG and trend] |
| Total | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value and percentage] | [RAG and trend] |
12. Impact of changes on budget and schedule
| Change ID | Description and status | Cost impact | Schedule impact | Scope, quality or benefit impact | Decision or authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Change ID] | [Proposed, approved, rejected or implemented] | [Value or range] | [Time impact] | [Material consequence] | [Reference or decision required] |
Financial and change impact scrutiny questions
- Do the figures reconcile with the approved baseline?
- Are actual cost, forecast outturn and variance shown separately?
- Are contingency movements explained?
- Are cost and schedule impacts of approved or proposed changes visible?
- Are financial tolerances and emerging breaches explicit?
- Does the report state which figures are provisional or awaiting validation?
13. Annexes, evidence and distribution
Make the report traceable without making it bloated.
Annexes and attachments
| Reference | Document or dataset | Version or date | Purpose | Owner or location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [A] | [Risk Register, Issue Log, plan or financial report] | [Version or date] | [Evidence supported] | [Owner or controlled location] |
Distribution list
| Name | Role | Reason for receipt | Access or handling requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [Role] | [Decision, assurance, action or information] | [Classification or restriction] |
| [Name] | [Role] | [Decision, assurance, action or information] | [Classification or restriction] |
| [Name] | [Role] | [Decision, assurance, action or information] | [Classification or restriction] |
Evidence and distribution scrutiny questions
- Can every material statement be traced to a controlled source?
- Are the supporting logs and schedules current at the information cut-off date?
- Are lessons converted into a change in action or control?
- Are annexes referenced only where they add necessary evidence?
- Does the distribution list match the communication approach?
- Is sensitive information handled at the correct classification?
Final quality check
Test whether the report enables control.
Final Highlight Report quality check
- Is the reporting period and information cut-off clear?
- Are RAG thresholds defined against agreed tolerances?
- Does the report show trend and forecast, not only current status?
- Can the overall position be understood in under two minutes?
- Are milestones compared with the approved baseline?
- Are missed commitments disclosed with cause, impact and recovery?
- Are next-period commitments measurable, owned and dated?
- Are risks and issues kept separate?
- Are only material exposures escalated to the Board?
- Does every escalated item state the Board attention required?
- Are lessons translated into changed action or control?
- Is each decision request explicit, recommended and time-bound?
- Are previous Board actions tracked to closure?
- Does the budget show forecast outturn and variance?
- Are change impacts reconciled across cost, time, scope, quality and benefits?
- Can every material statement be traced to current evidence?
If any answer is no, the report is not ready for Project Board scrutiny.
Want the editable Word version?
Use the preformatted Highlight Report.
The page above gives you the full reporting logic and strengthened governance prompts. The editable four-page Word resource provides the original compact report layout with coloured drafting prompts, ready-to-complete tables, reference fields, budget sections, annexes and a distribution list.
The resource unlocks shortly after the trial period.
Explore Prepare2Lead membershipIncluded with paid Prepare2Lead membership, from $97 a month.Important note
This working template supports structured project reporting. It does not replace the reporting format, tolerances, assurance requirements or decision authorities approved for your project. Tailor its length and frequency to the project's scale, complexity and risk.
Never use artificial intelligence to invent progress, dates, costs, acceptance evidence, risks, issues, status or Board decisions. It can help organise verified material, but accountability remains with the Project Manager and Project Board.