Skip to content
PMPMedium

PMP Practice: Break Down Scope

Question 13 of 14 in Develop and Manage Project Scope

Pick an answer below — you'll get the explanation instantly, no signup.

Haruki Tanaka-Wen is managing a hybrid project for Spaghetti Architecture Corp to develop a telehealth platform. The project uses predictive planning for infrastructure deployment and agile sprints for feature development. During sprint review, three department heads each claim that the patient scheduling module—delivered last sprint—is missing critical functionality they expected. The QA lead confirms the module meets all documented acceptance criteria. The marketing director insists her team explicitly requested SMS appointment reminders during a planning session two months ago, but this requirement appears nowhere in the product backlog or requirements documentation. The CFO is pressuring Haruki to avoid scope changes that would delay the go-live date now three weeks away. What should Haruki do to address this situation most effectively?
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: Convene the three department heads and the product owner to review the original scope agreement, identify where expectations diverged from documented requirements, and facilitate consensus on whether the missing functionality represents new scope or an oversight that must be addressed before launch

Explanation

When stakeholders claim delivered work is incomplete despite meeting documented criteria, the root cause is typically a misalignment between expectations and documented scope. The project manager must facilitate stakeholder agreement by bringing together those with competing views, reviewing what was actually agreed upon versus what was understood, and building consensus on how to proceed. This approach addresses both the immediate issue and prevents similar problems. The scenario's closing fact—that the requirements are documented and approved but don't match stakeholder expectations—indicates a communication or requirements elicitation failure that must be resolved collaboratively. With only three weeks to launch, understanding whether this represents genuine missing scope or new requests is critical before taking action.

**Why not B:** Premature action without understanding whether this truly was an original requirement or a new request. The fact that it's not documented anywhere despite being 'discussed' suggests it may have been an informal conversation never properly captured. Adding it immediately bypasses both change control and the critical question of whether other stakeholders share this expectation or if it conflicts with the agreed minimum viable product for launch.

**Why not C:** Technically accurate but relationally damaging. While the module does meet documented criteria, dismissing multiple stakeholder concerns without investigation damages trust and may lead to a product that technically passes acceptance but fails to deliver expected value. The hybrid approach requires balancing documented scope with stakeholder collaboration—this response is too rigid for the situation.

**Why not D:** Escalating prematurely before investigating and attempting to resolve at the appropriate level. The project manager has the authority and responsibility to facilitate stakeholder alignment on scope questions. Escalation is appropriate when stakeholders cannot reach consensus after facilitated discussion, but going immediately to executives suggests the PM is avoiding the core responsibility of managing scope and stakeholder expectations.

Key Concept

This question covers Break Down Scope under Develop and Manage Project Scope (Process).

Share:

This is 1 of 100 free PMP questions

Unlock 6,300+ PMP practice questions with detailed explanations, progress tracking, and exam readiness prediction.

Unlock All Questions