CAPM Practice: Determine how to conduct stakeholder communication

The distinction is critical. Informing stakeholders about requirements decisions builds awareness but not ownership. Involving them in creating requirements builds deep understanding, surfaces valuable insights, and creates the buy-in needed for adoption and change management.

**Why not A:** Segmenting communication strategy purely by stakeholder type (business vs. technical) rather than by what the project needs from each stakeholder is an oversimplification. Technical stakeholders often need to be deeply involved in requirements discovery to surface feasibility constraints and design implications.

**Why not B:** Stakeholder involvement, when managed well, improves requirements quality and stakeholder buy-in rather than causing scope creep. Scope creep typically results from poor change control, not from involving stakeholders in structured requirements processes.

**Why not D:** Treating informing and involving as synonymous collapses an important strategic distinction. Informing is one-directional (sending information), while involving is bi-directional (soliciting contribution). The choice between them directly affects requirements quality and stakeholder commitment to outcomes.