02.1
Baseline integrity
Is the baseline currently being reported against the one that was sanctioned, and if not, is every step between the two documented?
What goes wrong without it
Performance reporting is only meaningful relative to a baseline, so a baseline that has quietly moved makes every subsequent report defensible and useless. Programmes rarely lose the baseline in one visible event. It goes in a series of small re-baselines, each individually reasonable, none of which is wrong on its own terms. The cumulative movement is what nobody is looking at, because no single report shows it.
What to examine
- Reconcile the current baseline to the sanctioned baseline in one continuous chain. The inability to do this is the finding, and it is common.
- Count the re-baselines and read the approval for each. Check who approved them and whether that person also owned the performance being re-based.
- Compare current forecast against the original sanction figure, not against the most recent baseline. This is usually the only number that surprises anybody.
- Check whether scope was removed to hold cost. Descoping presented as underspend is the most common quiet failure at this stage.
Required by
- ISO 21502:2020, Clause 7, management practices covering planning, scope, schedule, cost and change control.
- PMBOK Guide, Eighth Edition, November 2025, scope, schedule and finance performance domains.
Read the sources
- ISO 21502:2020, guidance on project management2020; read 2026-09-26.The link carries the abstract and publication details, not the guidance text.
In the asset lifecycle method
The steps of the two methods that this domain examines.