PMP Practice: Establish Governance Structure and Policies

The governance framework explicitly defines when steering committee escalation is required, and the proposed 22% schedule compression exceeds the 15% threshold. Established governance structures exist to ensure appropriate oversight for decisions with significant project impact. Even though the sponsor suggests avoiding escalation, the project manager's responsibility is to follow the defined governance process, not circumvent it for convenience. Lila should present both stakeholder positions objectively with a thorough impact analysis covering cost implications, quality risks, and regulatory compliance concerns. This allows the steering committee to make an informed decision considering organizational strategy and risk tolerance. Bypassing established governance undermines the framework's purpose and exposes the organization to unreviewed risk.

**Why not A:** Accepting the sponsor's guidance and proposing a one-month schedule compression—framed as a "middle ground"—would result in a 16% schedule change, which still exceeds the 15% threshold requiring steering committee approval. This approach attempts to work around the governance requirement by finding a numerically convenient compromise rather than following the established process. The sponsor's preference to keep the committee out of it does not override the governance framework the organization established at project initiation.

**Why not C:** Recommending proceeding with the original timeline and explaining that governance thresholds protect project integrity is a reasonable position but does not resolve the legitimate competing requests from the marketing director and quality manager. Simply maintaining the status quo and citing governance does not address the business value the marketing director sees in the trade show timing or the quality risks the quality manager is highlighting. The steering committee is the appropriate body to weigh these competing considerations, not the project manager acting unilaterally.

**Why not D:** Negotiating directly with the marketing director and quality manager to find a compromise timeline within the 15% threshold attempts to use mathematical precision to circumvent the spirit of the governance process. If the compromise lands at, say, 14.9% compression, the governance threshold would technically not be triggered, but the project manager would have deliberately structured a negotiation to avoid escalation that the sponsor requested. This approach also ignores the quality manager's six-week extension proposal, which involves quality and regulatory risk considerations that belong in front of the steering committee.