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

The right response balances governance and agility. Explain the value of change control (preventing uncoordinated changes that cascade into cost/schedule problems). Then find ways to make the process more efficient: maybe a streamlined track for minor technical changes with a small technical change board; faster turnaround times; clearer criteria for what requires full CCB review vs. a simplified process. Good governance doesn't have to be slow governance.

**Why not A:** Allowing senior developers to bypass change control creates a two-tier governance system that undermines the entire process. If some team members can bypass controls, others will question why they must follow them, and uncoordinated changes will erode project integrity.

**Why not B:** Eliminating change control entirely abandons a critical governance mechanism. Team morale concerns are important but should be addressed through process improvement, not by removing essential project controls that protect against uncoordinated changes.

**Why not C:** Escalating for disciplinary action is unnecessarily punitive and damages the collaborative relationship. The developers' concerns about process speed may be legitimate. The appropriate response is to explain the value of change control and work together to streamline it.