PMI PMP Project Management Professional Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 9 Q121-135
Visit here for our full PMI PMP exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 121
During project execution, a project manager notices that scope changes are being requested frequently, leading to scope creep and affecting the project schedule and budget. What is the best approach to address this situation?
A) Implement all requested changes immediately to satisfy stakeholders.
B) Use the integrated change control process to evaluate, approve, and document each change request.
C) Ignore change requests to maintain the original scope.
D) Reprimand stakeholders for requesting changes.
Answer: B) Use the integrated change control process to evaluate, approve, and document each change request
Explanation
Frequent scope changes can lead to scope creep, which threatens project success by introducing uncontrolled work, increasing costs, extending timelines, and affecting quality. Implementing all changes immediately may satisfy stakeholders temporarily, but risks derailing the project, creating resource conflicts, and compromising quality and schedule. Ignoring change requests can frustrate stakeholders, reduce engagement, and result in misaligned expectations. Reprimanding stakeholders is counterproductive and can harm relationships, decreasing support and collaboration.
The most effective approach is to use the integrated change control process. Each change request is carefully analyzed for its impact on scope, schedule, cost, quality, and risk before approval. This structured evaluation allows informed decision-making, ensures alignment with project objectives, and prevents unnecessary disruptions. Approved changes are documented and communicated, while rejected changes are explained to maintain transparency. This process balances flexibility with control, ensuring the project can adapt to evolving needs without compromising baseline objectives.
This approach aligns with PMI Scope Management, Integration Management, and Change Control principles. Structured change management protects project objectives, optimizes resource utilization, and maintains stakeholder confidence. Teams benefit from clarity on priorities, reducing confusion and improving productivity. Stakeholders gain assurance that their requests are addressed systematically and fairly. Proactive change control ensures that project deliverables remain aligned with organizational goals, resources are managed efficiently, and risks are mitigated. By implementing an integrated approach to managing scope changes, the project manager sustains project performance, maintains schedule and budget integrity, and strengthens stakeholder trust, ultimately supporting long-term project and organizational success.
Question 122
During project execution, a project manager notices that risk responses are not being executed effectively, resulting in increased exposure to potential threats. What is the best approach to address this situation?
A) Ignore the ineffective risk responses since the plan exists.
B) Review and reinforce the risk management plan, provide guidance, and monitor execution of risk responses.
C) Reprimand the team for failing to execute risk responses.
D) Stop project activities until risk responses are perfectly implemented.
Answer: B) Review and reinforce the risk management plan, provide guidance, and monitor execution of risk responses
Explanation
Ineffective execution of risk responses increases exposure to threats, potentially causing schedule delays, budget overruns, and reduced quality. Ignoring this problem assumes risks will not materialize significantly, which increases uncertainty and may result in negative stakeholder perception. Reprimanding the team addresses accountability but does not provide solutions, possibly lowering morale and reducing proactive problem-solving. Stopping project activities is impractical and may disrupt progress without effectively managing risks.
The most effective approach is to review and reinforce the risk management plan, provide guidance, and monitor execution of risk responses. This includes clarifying responsibilities, ensuring resources are available, and confirming that mitigation strategies are applied consistently. Continuous monitoring ensures risks are managed proactively, adjustments can be made as needed, and emerging threats are addressed early. Lessons learned from ineffective execution can guide future risk planning and preventive actions.
This approach aligns with PMI Risk Management, Integration Management, and Communication Management principles. Consistent application of risk responses minimizes negative impacts, maintains schedule and cost control, and supports high-quality deliverables. Teams gain clarity, confidence, and accountability, promoting a proactive risk-aware culture. Stakeholders gain assurance that potential threats are being actively managed, enhancing trust and confidence in project outcomes. Effective monitoring and reinforcement of risk management processes optimize resource allocation, maintain alignment with project objectives, and ensure timely completion of deliverables. Proactively managing risk execution strengthens project resilience, mitigates uncertainty, and supports long-term project and organizational success.
Question 123
During project execution, a project manager notices that project performance data is not being collected consistently, resulting in difficulty tracking progress and making informed decisions. What is the best approach to address this situation?
A) Ignore the incomplete data since work is ongoing.
B) Reinforce performance measurement processes, standardize data collection, and ensure timely reporting.
C) Reprimand team members for failing to collect data.
D) Stop project execution until perfect data collection is achieved.
Answer: B) Reinforce performance measurement processes, standardize data collection, and ensure timely reporting
Explanation
Inconsistent collection of project performance data prevents accurate tracking, early detection of issues, and informed decision-making. Ignoring incomplete data assumes that project performance can be assessed subjectively, which risks delays, cost overruns, and quality issues. Reprimanding team members targets accountability without resolving process gaps, potentially reducing morale and engagement. Stopping project execution until perfect data collection is impractical, introducing unnecessary delays without addressing root causes.
The most effective approach is to reinforce performance measurement processes, standardize data collection methods, and ensure timely reporting. Establishing clear guidelines for data collection ensures that information is accurate, consistent, and comparable across project activities. Standardizing formats, frequency, and responsibilities promotes efficiency and minimizes errors. Timely reporting provides project managers and stakeholders with actionable insights, supporting proactive decision-making, corrective actions, and performance optimization.
This approach aligns with PMI Performance Measurement, Integration Management, and Communication Management principles. Accurate and consistent performance data enables reliable schedule, cost, and quality tracking, supporting alignment with project objectives. Teams benefit from structured processes and clarity on expectations, enhancing productivity and accountability. Stakeholders gain confidence in project oversight and the ability to make informed decisions. Effective performance measurement supports risk mitigation, resource optimization, and timely adjustments to maintain project alignment. By standardizing data collection and ensuring timely reporting, the project manager improves transparency, fosters continuous improvement, and ensures the project remains on track to meet organizational goals, ultimately contributing to successful project delivery and stakeholder satisfaction.
Question 124
During project execution, a project manager observes that team morale is decreasing, resulting in lower productivity and engagement. What is the best approach to address this situation?
A) Ignore morale issues since work is still being completed.
B) Conduct team assessments, provide support, recognize achievements, and address concerns proactively.
C) Reprimand the team for reduced productivity.
D) Replace team members showing low engagement.
Answer: B) Conduct team assessments, provide support, recognize achievements, and address concerns proactively
Explanation
Decreasing team morale can negatively affect productivity, quality, and overall project performance. Ignoring the problem assumes that work will continue at acceptable levels, but disengagement can lead to errors, delays, and increased turnover, ultimately jeopardizing project objectives. Reprimanding the team may create fear or resentment, further reducing motivation and collaboration. Replacing team members is disruptive, time-consuming, and costly, and it may not address underlying causes of low morale, such as workload imbalance, unclear roles, or lack of recognition.
The most effective approach is to conduct team assessments to identify factors affecting morale, provide necessary support, recognize achievements, and proactively address concerns. This can include clarifying roles and responsibilities, providing additional resources, offering professional development opportunities, and fostering open communication. Recognition of accomplishments reinforces positive behavior, builds trust, and increases engagement. Addressing concerns directly ensures that issues are mitigated before they escalate and supports a collaborative, motivated work environment.
This approach aligns with PMI Human Resource Management, Communication Management, and Integration Management principles. By focusing on morale, the project manager enhances team performance, reduces errors, and maintains schedule adherence. Teams gain clarity, support, and motivation, which strengthens collaboration and accountability. Stakeholders benefit from consistent performance and timely delivery of high-quality outputs. Proactive morale management also fosters a positive organizational culture, reduces turnover, and ensures sustainable productivity. By engaging with the team effectively, the project manager improves project efficiency, mitigates risks associated with disengagement, and strengthens alignment with organizational objectives and stakeholder expectations.
Question 125
During project execution, a project manager notices that project documentation is inconsistent, making it difficult to track progress and maintain knowledge for future projects. What is the best approach to address this situation?
A) Ignore documentation issues since work is being completed.
B) Reinforce documentation standards, implement templates, and establish regular reviews.
C) Reprimand team members for incomplete documentation.
D) Stop project activities until all documentation is perfect.
Answer: B) Reinforce documentation standards, implement templates, and establish regular reviews
Explanation
Inconsistent project documentation can hinder progress tracking, impede knowledge transfer, and create confusion during decision-making. Ignoring documentation issues assumes that the project can function effectively without proper records, which risks miscommunication, errors, and challenges in post-project evaluation. Reprimanding team members may not address the root cause of inconsistencies and can negatively impact morale and collaboration. Stopping project activities until all documentation is perfect is impractical, causing delays without improving long-term knowledge management or project efficiency.
The most effective approach is to reinforce documentation standards, implement templates for consistency, and establish regular review processes. Standardized templates ensure that all necessary information is captured, improving clarity and completeness. Regular reviews provide opportunities to correct omissions, identify inconsistencies, and maintain compliance with organizational and regulatory requirements. Clear expectations regarding documentation responsibilities help team members understand the importance of accurate records and encourage accountability.
This approach aligns with PMI Integration Management, Communication Management, and Knowledge Management principles. Consistent documentation supports effective tracking of project progress, facilitates communication among team members and stakeholders, and ensures lessons learned are preserved for future initiatives. Teams benefit from structured processes that reduce ambiguity and enhance collaboration. Stakeholders gain assurance that project decisions are well-documented, supporting transparency and accountability. Effective documentation management reduces the risk of errors, improves efficiency, and contributes to organizational learning. By maintaining clear, consistent documentation, the project manager ensures project continuity, supports decision-making, and strengthens overall project performance and organizational credibility.
Question 126
During project execution, a project manager observes that external risks, such as regulatory changes, are impacting project deliverables. What is the best approach to address this situation?
A) Ignore external risks and continue execution.
B) Monitor external risks, update the risk register, and adjust project plans with stakeholder input.
C) Reprimand stakeholders or external partners for changes.
D) Stop project execution until external risks are eliminated.
Answer: B) Monitor external risks, update the risk register, and adjust project plans with stakeholder input
Explanation
External risks, such as regulatory changes, can disrupt project timelines, budgets, and compliance requirements. Ignoring these risks assumes they will not have significant impacts, which can result in non-compliance, delays, additional costs, or reputational damage. Reprimanding stakeholders or external partners is unproductive, as these changes may be beyond their control and may harm relationships. Stopping project execution until external risks are eliminated is impractical, as external factors are often uncontrollable, and delays may result in missed opportunities or organizational setbacks.
The most effective approach is to actively monitor external risks, update the risk register, and adjust project plans accordingly, with input from stakeholders. Monitoring external risks involves identifying potential changes in regulations, market conditions, or other external influences that could affect project outcomes. Updating the risk register ensures that risks are documented, prioritized, and assigned mitigation strategies. Adjusting project plans with stakeholder input ensures that changes are managed collaboratively, maintaining alignment with objectives while addressing constraints imposed by external factors.
This approach aligns with PMI Risk Management, Integration Management, and Stakeholder Management principles. Monitoring and managing external risks enhances project resilience, maintains compliance, and supports effective resource allocation. Teams gain clarity on priorities and guidance on managing emerging risks. Stakeholders gain confidence that the project is being managed proactively, even in the face of uncertainties. By systematically addressing external risks, the project manager mitigates potential impacts, ensures alignment with objectives, and supports timely and high-quality deliverables. Effective management of external risks reduces uncertainty, strengthens stakeholder trust, and contributes to successful project outcomes and organizational sustainability.
Question 127
A project to modernize a company’s internal data-processing system is underway. Midway through execution, a senior stakeholder insists on adding an advanced analytics dashboard that was not included in the original scope. The stakeholder argues that this feature will “add tremendous business value” and wants it delivered within the same timeline. The project manager reviews the request and sees that the change requires significant development, additional licenses, and extended testing. What should the project manager do first?
Immediately reject the request because it threatens the project schedule
B. Escalate the issue to the project sponsor for a decision
C. Submit the request to the change control process for evaluation
D. Ask the team to estimate effort and begin work while approval is pending
Answer: C) Submit the request to the change control process for evaluation
Explanation:
This situation clearly presents a scenario where new functionality is being requested midway through the execution of a project, and this functionality is outside the approved project scope. A senior stakeholder emphasizing the value of a new dashboard does not eliminate the fact that it still represents additional work. The very first thing a project manager must identify in such circumstances is whether the request impacts any project baselines. In this case, the change introduces new development work, adds licensing, extends testing, and therefore has probable impacts on cost, schedule, scope, and potentially risk exposure. Any request that has these kinds of implications cannot be accepted or rejected immediately without analysis, because that would be outside the norms of project governance. Rejecting immediately, which is the first possible response, ignores the structured process of assessing whether a change might offer legitimate value after proper evaluation.
The idea of escalating the request directly to the sponsor for a decision does not represent the correct first step either. Although the sponsor is indeed an authority figure in approving major changes, sponsor involvement typically occurs after the integrated change control process gathers critical information. Escalation before analysis would deprive the sponsor of necessary data and could lead to decisions based on intuition rather than structured understanding. Project management principles emphasize a systematic approach so that no decision-maker acts based on incomplete information.
Beginning work before approval, as seen in the fourth response choice, is one of the most harmful mistakes a project manager can make. Starting tasks before formal approval allows uncontrolled scope expansion. This creates scope creep, introduces risk, leads to wasted effort if the change is later denied, and violates procedures. Teams must not begin implementation until formal authorization is granted. No matter how urgently a stakeholder demands the change, the project manager’s responsibility is to protect the agreed-upon baselines and follow established governance processes.
The correct response is the one that ensures proper evaluation, controlled decision-making, and transparency. Submitting the request through the integrated change control process ensures that experts can analyze its effect on resources, cost, schedule, quality, risk, procurement implications, and stakeholder interests. This process provides a structured, documented, and objective foundation for deciding whether to move forward. It allows decisions to be made with clarity and prevents ad-hoc modifications that could disrupt overall project success. This is why the correct answer is C.
Question 128
During the planning phase of a multinational infrastructure project, several team members express concern that cultural differences and communication barriers could create misunderstandings during execution. The team spans five countries, multiple languages, and diverse technical backgrounds. What should the project manager do to best address these concerns?
Assign a senior team member from each region to act as an informal communication coordinator
B. Develop a detailed communications management plan that defines channels, expectations, formats, and frequency
C. Schedule more frequent meetings to ensure continuous clarification
D. Delay planning until all stakeholders agree on a single unified communication tool
Answer: B) Develop a detailed communications management plan that defines channels, expectations, formats, and frequency
Explanation:
This scenario describes a global team with significant cultural and linguistic diversity. Such conditions inherently increase communication complexity and require structured mechanisms to ensure clarity and alignment. The idea of appointing senior representatives as informal coordinators may appear helpful on the surface, but it lacks the consistency and governance required for managing communication across borders. Informal communication channels can lead to selective information sharing, reliance on intermediaries, and inconsistencies depending on each coordinator’s style, experience, or perception.
Scheduling more frequent meetings may offer temporary clarity, but meetings alone do not resolve issues related to cultural nuance, expectations, or inconsistent communication patterns. Increasing meeting frequency can create fatigue, reduce productivity, and still fail to provide a repeatable communication structure that works across time zones and work cultures.
Delaying planning until agreement on a single shared tool is also ineffective. Tools support communication, but they are not substitutes for processes. Waiting for a unanimous tool agreement would unnecessarily stall planning and create early delays. Tools should be integrated into a broader strategy rather than becoming the focal point.
The most effective and structured approach is the creation of a detailed communications management plan. This artifact defines communication channels, approved tools, message formats, language considerations, escalation paths, distribution lists, and frequency of communication. It also accounts for cultural and linguistic differences and ensures that expectations are standardized across all regions. A well-prepared communication plan reduces ambiguity, increases predictability, and supports collaboration in complex global environments. This is why B is correct.
Question 129
A company is implementing a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. During execution, the project manager notices that team morale is declining due to long working hours, unclear task assignments, and conflicts about priorities. What should the project manager do to improve the situation?
A. Enforce stricter deadlines to increase accountability
B. Conduct a team-building workshop focused on collaboration and trust
C. Review and refine resource management and team management strategies
D. Replace team members who are underperforming
Answer: C) Review and refine resource management and team management strategies
Explanation:
Declining morale, excessive working hours, confusion about responsibilities, and priority conflicts are clear indicators that the underlying structure of resource management is inadequate. Enforcing stricter deadlines when a team is already exhausted is counterproductive. Increased pressure can worsen morale, reduce performance, and cause burnout. It ignores the root cause of the issue and creates more harm than good.
Conducting a team-building workshop may improve communication temporarily, but it does not correct workload distribution problems or unclear task assignments. Team-building is beneficial, but it cannot compensate for structural failings in task planning, capacity allocation, or priority setting.
Replacing team members is also an inappropriate step because performance issues often stem from poor planning, unclear expectations, or overloaded schedules rather than individual capability. Removing people without fixing the environment simply transfers the issue to new team members and disrupts continuity.
The correct action is to examine and adjust resource management and team management processes. This includes reviewing workload allocation, clarifying roles, refining RACI matrices, balancing capacities, aligning priorities, and ensuring realistic timelines. When structural issues are addressed, morale improves naturally because expectations become clear, workloads become manageable, and conflicts diminish. Therefore, the correct answer is C.
Question 130
During the execution of a software development project, the project manager notices that defect rates are increasing despite the team following the test plan. The client is unhappy with repeated quality issues. What should the project manager do to address the situation?
A) Continue executing the current test plan since it was approved during planning
B) Conduct a root cause analysis, implement corrective actions, and adjust quality processes as needed
C) Reprimand team members responsible for testing
D) Delay further development until all defects are resolved
Answer: B) Conduct a root cause analysis, implement corrective actions, and adjust quality processes as needed
Explanation:
The scenario presents a classic quality management problem. The defect rate is increasing even though the approved test plan is being executed. Ignoring the issue and continuing with the same plan will likely worsen defects, reduce client confidence, and increase rework costs. Simply executing the plan does not guarantee quality if the processes or approach are flawed or if unanticipated issues have emerged. Quality is proactive and iterative, requiring ongoing evaluation and process adjustments.
Reprimanding the team does not resolve the underlying issue. While accountability is important, punishing team members may reduce morale, hinder collaboration, and distract from analyzing the root causes of defects. Blaming individuals without understanding systemic issues is counterproductive in quality-focused project management.
Delaying development until all defects are resolved may seem cautious, but it is impractical. Defects will naturally emerge during execution, and halting work can delay schedules unnecessarily. Stopping development also ignores the opportunity to implement corrective actions that can prevent further defects while continuing progress.
The most effective approach is to conduct a root cause analysis. This allows the project manager to identify why defects are occurring, whether due to process gaps, miscommunication, inadequate testing methods, or technical challenges. Once causes are identified, corrective actions can be implemented to prevent recurrence. Adjusting quality processes ensures that improvements are systemic, not temporary fixes, and provides a mechanism for continuous improvement. This approach aligns with PMI Quality Management principles, including Plan-Do-Check-Act cycles, to maintain deliverable quality and client satisfaction. It enables teams to learn from errors, improve processes, reduce rework, and deliver products that meet stakeholder expectations. Implementing corrective actions and updating processes strengthens project performance, builds client confidence, and ensures sustainable quality improvements. Therefore, B is the correct response.
Question 131
During the execution of a construction project, the project manager realizes that the critical path activities are experiencing delays, which could affect the final delivery date. What is the most appropriate action for the project manager to take?
A) Ignore the delays since other activities are still on schedule
B) Perform a schedule analysis, explore options like crashing or fast tracking, and implement corrective actions
C) Reprimand the contractors responsible for the delayed activities
D) Extend the project deadline without analysis to accommodate the delays
Answer: B) Perform a schedule analysis, explore options like crashing or fast tracking, and implement corrective actions
Explanation:
Critical path delays are particularly concerning because they directly affect the project’s completion date. Ignoring delays on critical path activities while non-critical tasks proceed may result in late project delivery. Non-critical tasks do not offset delays on critical path activities, so this approach does not protect schedule performance or stakeholder expectations.
Reprimanding contractors or team members responsible for delays addresses accountability but does not provide a solution to bring the schedule back on track. Punitive measures can harm relationships, reduce cooperation, and have minimal impact on correcting the delays themselves.
Extending the project deadline without analyzing the delays is risky. It assumes that all delays are unavoidable and ignores potential strategies to accelerate the schedule. Unjustified extensions can increase costs, reduce stakeholder satisfaction, and may be perceived as poor project control.
The correct action is to perform schedule analysis, identify the causes of delays, and explore corrective strategies such as crashing or fast tracking. Crashing involves adding resources to critical path activities to reduce duration, while fast tracking allows overlapping activities that were originally sequential. Implementing these corrective actions requires careful evaluation of cost, risk, and feasibility. Schedule analysis also helps identify where adjustments will have the greatest impact on returning the project to its planned completion date. This approach aligns with PMI Schedule Management principles, ensuring the project remains on track while balancing cost, risk, and quality. Proactive schedule management maintains stakeholder confidence, minimizes downstream impact, and demonstrates effective leadership in navigating execution challenges. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Question 132
During the execution of a marketing campaign project, the project manager notices that resource utilization is uneven, with some team members overloaded and others underutilized. This is causing delays and frustration. What should the project manager do?
A) Maintain the current assignments and let the team self-adjust
B) Conduct a resource leveling analysis and adjust assignments to balance workload
C) Reprimand overloaded team members for not completing tasks on time
D) Hire additional resources immediately without analyzing the workload
Answer: B) Conduct a resource leveling analysis and adjust assignments to balance workload
Explanation:
Uneven resource utilization is a common problem in project execution and can lead to burnout, decreased morale, errors, and delays. Ignoring the imbalance and letting the team self-adjust assumes that team members will redistribute tasks effectively on their own, which is often unrealistic in structured projects with interdependent tasks.
Reprimanding overloaded team members for not meeting deadlines is unfair and does not solve the root cause. Delays are a result of workload imbalance rather than individual failure. Punitive measures may decrease morale and cooperation.
Hiring additional resources without analyzing the workload first may lead to unnecessary costs, duplicative work, and further coordination challenges. Additional resources do not automatically resolve poor assignment distribution and may require training, integration, and additional management effort.
The correct approach is to perform a resource leveling analysis. This involves reviewing all assignments, availability, dependencies, and priorities to create a balanced workload across the team. Adjustments may include redistributing tasks, modifying timelines for non-critical activities, or adjusting dependencies to ensure equitable use of skills and effort. Resource leveling aligns with PMI Resource Management principles, helping to optimize productivity, reduce stress, and maintain schedule integrity. Proper workload balancing enhances team morale, reduces the risk of errors, and ensures project objectives are achieved efficiently. By proactively managing assignments, the project manager maintains project stability and performance. This makes B the correct answer.
Question 133
During the execution of a product development project, the project manager realizes that multiple stakeholders have conflicting expectations about the product features. This is causing repeated changes and confusion among team members. What should the project manager do to resolve this issue?
A) Continue development as planned and address conflicts when the product is complete
B) Schedule a stakeholder alignment session to clarify requirements, priorities, and expectations
C) Implement the features requested by the most influential stakeholder only
D) Delay development until all stakeholders agree unanimously on every feature
Answer: B) Schedule a stakeholder alignment session to clarify requirements, priorities, and expectations
Explanation:
Conflicting stakeholder expectations during project execution are one of the most persistent challenges faced by project managers. This issue becomes even more difficult in environments where multiple departments, external partners, senior executives, or regulatory bodies play active roles. Projects rarely progress in isolation; they operate within complex organizational ecosystems in which each stakeholder carries unique priorities, concerns, and interpretations of project goals. When these perspectives diverge, unresolved conflicts inevitably permeate the development process and create substantial obstacles.
Allowing these conflicts to persist while moving forward with development is a risky and often costly strategy. If the team continues working based on inconsistent or unclear requirements, their efforts may drift away from the true organizational needs. This misalignment results in rework, extended timelines, increased costs, and potentially deeper organizational tensions. Rework alone can consume a significant portion of project resources, ultimately reducing the efficiency and predictability of delivery. In many cases, the longer misalignments linger, the more entrenched and complicated they become, making resolution even more challenging later in the project life cycle.
Some project managers, in an attempt to maintain momentum, may prioritize and implement features favored by the most influential or highest-ranking stakeholder. While this approach might appear to streamline decision-making, it introduces bias into the process and risks alienating other contributors. Stakeholders who feel disregarded may disengage, resist decisions, or escalate concerns through governance channels. This behavior erodes trust and can impact not only the current project but future collaborations as well. Favoring one influential voice also fails to address the underlying misalignment and may even create new conflicts if the chosen direction conflicts with organizational strategy or technical constraints.
Another tempting but flawed approach is delaying development until all stakeholders unanimously approve every feature or decision. Although seeking agreement reflects a desire to be inclusive and thorough, achieving full consensus is often unrealistic. Stakeholders frequently have competing priorities, and organizational politics or budgetary pressures can amplify disagreements. Waiting for unanimity can stall progress indefinitely, turning even minor decisions into prolonged debates. These delays directly impact cost, productivity, and team morale. Projects rely on timely decision-making to remain viable, and excessive postponement can cause missed opportunities, lost market competitiveness, or failure to meet strategic deadlines.
The most effective strategy for resolving conflicting expectations is to conduct a structured stakeholder alignment session. This dedicated meeting provides a controlled environment for openly discussing requirements, clarifying assumptions, negotiating priorities, and reconciling differing viewpoints. By bringing stakeholders together in a transparent and moderated setting, the project manager creates space for constructive dialogue and shared understanding. Such sessions help surface hidden concerns, reduce miscommunication, and foster a collaborative mindset.
During the alignment session, the project manager can use formal tools and techniques such as requirements traceability matrices, MoSCoW prioritization, decision matrices, and facilitated workshops. These tools provide structure, remove ambiguity, and ensure that decisions are grounded in objective criteria rather than personal influence. Documenting the outcomes of the session further strengthens clarity. Clear, agreed-upon requirements and priorities help guide project execution, reduce the likelihood of future disputes, and support effective communication with the team.
This approach mirrors the principles outlined in PMI’s Stakeholder Management and Communication Management processes, which emphasize engaging stakeholders proactively, managing expectations, and ensuring everyone shares a consistent understanding of project objectives. When stakeholders feel heard and involved, trust increases,, and collaboration becomes more effective. As a result, the project experiences fewer disruptions, benefits from stronger support, and maintains healthier relationships across the organization.
For these reasons, scheduling a stakeholder alignment session is the most practical and strategically sound solution. It provides structure, encourages participation, strengthens communication, and guides the project forward with clarity and confidence. Therefore, option B remains the correct answer.
Question 134
A construction project is in execution when the project manager observes that risks identified during planning are beginning to materialize. The risk responses planned have not fully mitigated the impact. What is the best course of action for the project manager?
A) Wait to see if the risks resolve themselves naturally
B) Update the risk register, implement contingency plans, and monitor outcomes closely
C) Reassign the risk management responsibility to the sponsor
D) Ignore minor risks and focus only on major issues
Answer: B) Update the risk register, implement contingency plans, and monitor outcomes closely
Explanation:
When planned risks start to materialize during the execution phase of a project, the project team must respond in a deliberate, timely, and well-coordinated manner. Allowing these risks to unfold without intervention is a common but costly mistake. Passive observation increases a project’s exposure to uncertainty and heightens the likelihood that negative events will intensify, spreading their impact across scope, cost, schedule, quality, and stakeholder satisfaction. Effective risk management is fundamentally proactive. It requires anticipating potential triggers, preparing responses in advance, and acting decisively the moment a risk shows signs of becoming an issue. This approach preserves project momentum and helps prevent minor disruptions from snowballing into major failures.
Project managers, in alignment with established project management standards such as those defined by PMI, carry the central responsibility for risk management throughout the project’s life cycle. This includes identification, qualitative and quantitative analysis, response planning, and ongoing monitoring and control. Delegating risk management responsibilities to the sponsor once project execution starts is misaligned with best practices and can create confusion regarding ownership and accountability. While sponsors may provide strategic guidance, escalate support when necessary, and approve major decisions involving significant resource allocations, they are not intended to manage the operational details of risk response. Placing this responsibility on them disrupts governance structures and may result in delayed decision-making, as sponsors typically engage at a higher strategic level rather than in daily project operations.
Neglecting lower-impact risks and focusing solely on major risks is another flawed approach that undermines disciplined risk management. Although it may seem efficient to concentrate resources on high-priority threats, minor risks can accumulate silently and interact with one another in ways that are difficult to predict. A pattern of small, unresolved issues can gradually push a project off track, exhausting resources, eroding stakeholder confidence, and creating conditions where more severe risks are triggered. Historical analysis across many failed projects consistently reveals that small risks, when ignored, often grow into significant problems because early warning signs were dismissed or minimized. Effective risk management does not treat minor risks as unimportant; instead, it addresses them proportionately, ensuring that mitigation actions are appropriate to their potential combined impact.
The most appropriate and structured approach for managing risks that begin to materialize is to update the risk register, implement the relevant contingency plans, and continue to monitor outcomes. Updating the risk register ensures that all current information about the risk is recorded, including changes in probability, impact, triggers, and response actions. This documentation supports transparency, enables informed decision-making, and promotes alignment across the project team and stakeholders. A current and accurate risk register also contributes to continuous learning and improved risk forecasting for future projects.
Implementing contingency plans is essential because these plans were developed in advance,c, specifically to address the type of risk that is now materializing. Contingency responses may involve resource reallocation, alternative execution approaches, activating backup suppliers, adjusting the schedule, or employing technical workarounds. Having these plans in place allows the project team to act quickly rather than scrambling to devise new solutions under pressure. This decisiveness helps contain impacts and prevents escalation.
Ongoing monitoring after contingency measures are enacted is equally important. Risk conditions can evolve rapidly, and the effectiveness of the implemented response may shift over time. Continuous monitoring allows the project manager to determine whether additional mitigation actions are needed, whether the contingency plan should be adjusted, or whether a fallback plan must be activated if the initial response does not adequately address the issue. Monitoring also ensures that stakeholders remain aware of changing risk conditions and understand the rationale behind the project team’s decisions.
This comprehensive, proactive, and adaptive process is consistent with PMI’s foundational principles of risk management. It emphasizes the importance of anticipating uncertainty, preparing structured responses, evaluating outcomes, and refining actions as needed. By following this disciplined method, the project manager strengthens the project’s resilience, maintains organizational confidence, and increases the likelihood of achieving the project’s objectives despite emerging challenges.
For these reasons, the correct approach is to update the risk register, execute contingency plans, and continue monitoring the risks as they evolve. Option B is therefore the correct answer.
Question 135
During the execution of a large-scale IT infrastructure project, the project manager finds that multiple team members are performing redundant work due to unclear responsibilities. This is causing delays and frustration. What should the project manager do?
A) Let the team resolve duplication themselves
B) Conduct a responsibility clarification session using a RACI matrix and adjust assignments
C) Reassign all tasks randomly to avoid overlap
D) Delay project work until a new team is hired
Answer: B) Conduct a responsibility clarification session using a RACI matrix and adjust assignments
Explanation:
Redundant work caused by unclear responsibilities is a significant warning sign that a project team is not aligned in how tasks are assigned or understood. When multiple individuals believe they are responsible for the same activity, the result is wasted effort, inconsistent outputs, and growing frustration among team members. This misalignment often stems from a lack of explicit communication about roles, deliverables, decision-making authority, and boundaries between tasks. If left unresolved, it can gradually erode team cohesion and undermine the project’s ability to meet its schedule, quality standards, and budget constraints.
Relying on the team to sort out duplication on their own may seem collaborative, but in practice, it often prolongs confusion rather than resolves it. Without structured facilitation, individuals may interpret responsibilities differently based on their own assumptions, past experiences, or communication styles. Attempts to self-correct can lead to interpersonal conflicts, uneven workloads, or inconsistent handoffs. Additionally, the time spent negotiating or debating responsibilities detracts from time that could be spent delivering actual project work. These inefficiencies can accumulate and eventually jeopardize major milestones, stakeholder confidence, and resource availability.
Randomly reassigning tasks to prevent overlap is equally ineffective. Reallocation without a structured method does not address the root cause of the confusion, which is the absence of clearly defined responsibilities. Random changes risk placing tasks with individuals who lack the appropriate expertise or context, introducing avoidable errors and rework. Team members may not understand the basis for the reassignment, which can further increase uncertainty and reduce morale. Instead of clarifying accountability, this approach introduces new ambiguities and may worsen the initial problem by disrupting established workflows.
Delaying work until new team members are hired is also impractical. Waiting for additional personnel increases project cost and extends the timeline, but more importantly, it does not inherently solve the structural issue of unclear task ownership. New hires may enter the project with even less clarity about their roles, leading to additional onboarding challenges and a repeat of the same confusion. Effective role definition is a management responsibility, regardless of team size or staffing changes.
The most effective and professional solution is to conduct a responsibility clarification session using a structured tool such as a RACI matrix. This method involves reviewing all key tasks, deliverables, and decision points, then designating who is responsible for completing the work, who is accountable for final approval, who must be consulted for input, and who must be kept informed. By systematically mapping responsibilities, the project manager removes ambiguity and provides a reference point that the team can rely on throughout the project lifecycle. This process also promotes transparency, enhances communication, and improves collaboration because expectations are documented and shared openly with all stakeholders. Aligning assignments through a RACI matrix supports efficient resource utilization, strengthens accountability, and contributes to a smoother workflow. This approach reflects PMI’s Resource Management and Integration principles, which emphasize clear role definitions and coordinated execution. Consequently, option B is the correct and most effective choice.