PMP Practice: Obtain Stakeholder Agreement on Scope

This scenario exhibits clear indicators for a fully adaptive approach: rapidly changing regulatory environment, uncertain feature requirements, client desire for frequent working prototypes, need for ongoing feedback loops, and a team experienced with iterative work. An agile approach with a prioritized product backlog allows scope to emerge naturally as the team learns from each sprint review. The three-week cadence matches the client's feedback preference, and the focus on business outcomes rather than predetermined features aligns with the project's uncertainty. The monthly policy changes can be incorporated into upcoming sprints without disrupting work in progress. The scenario's closing fact that the client wants to see working prototypes every three weeks and provide feedback based on real-world testing eliminates approaches that delay delivery or lock scope early.

**Why not B:** Documenting all known requirements in a scope baseline and waiting three months for requirements to stabilize contradicts the scenario's indicators. Requirements in this context will not stabilize due to rapidly evolving regulations and uncertain user behavior. This approach delays delivery unnecessarily and assumes stability will arrive when the scenario suggests it will not.

**Why not C:** A hybrid plan with fixed regulatory requirements and flexible features sounds plausible but overcomplicates the approach for this scenario. The regulations are changing monthly, not fixed, and the client wants working prototypes every three weeks. The team has iterative experience, and the client explicitly wants feedback-driven development—all pointing to a fully adaptive approach.

**Why not D:** Creating a comprehensive scope statement with a WBS and change control board before development begins contradicts every signal in the scenario. The client is uncertain about features, regulations evolve monthly, the client wants frequent prototypes and feedback, and the technology team works iteratively. Locking scope upfront would prevent the team from responding to the very changes the project is designed to accommodate.