CAPM Practice: Determine how to document project controls of predictive, plan-based projects

Even seemingly beneficial changes (like scope reductions) require full impact analysis. A scope reduction may: save cost but affect contractual deliverables; change schedule dates for downstream activities; affect customer satisfaction if valued features are removed; alter quality outcomes; or have contractual implications if the work was promised. All impacts must be evaluated before the CCB can make an informed decision.

**Why not A:** Evaluating only cost savings provides an incomplete picture. A scope reduction may affect quality, contractual obligations, stakeholder satisfaction, or schedule dependencies. Focusing solely on cost ignores these broader impacts that could create problems elsewhere in the project.

**Why not B:** Whether the sponsor approved the original scope is relevant context but does not constitute an impact analysis. The question asks what impact should be evaluated, and the answer must encompass the full range of project dimensions affected by the change, not just its authorization history.

**Why not D:** Team agreement is not the appropriate basis for evaluating a scope change. The impact analysis must consider objective factors — scope, schedule, cost, quality, stakeholder expectations, and contractual obligations — rather than subjective team preferences about the change.