PMP Practice: Execute the Change Control Process

In a hybrid project where change spans both predictive and agile components with interdependencies, the project manager must communicate through the governance structure that can evaluate the full cross-methodology impact. The change control board exists specifically to assess changes that affect baseline scope, schedule, and cost—particularly when regulatory deadlines are at risk. Since this change affects fixed infrastructure timelines and completed sprint work, the decision requires authority beyond the product owner or development team. The project manager has already completed the impact assessment, making formal presentation to the CCB the appropriate next step. The emphasis on cross-methodology dependencies ensures decision-makers understand the change affects both the predictive baseline and agile sprint commitments, enabling an informed decision about trade-offs between the new requirement and the regulatory deadline.

**Why not A:** Bringing the change request first to sprint planning with the product owner and then cascading infrastructure impacts to the change control board afterward treats the agile stream as the primary decision-making forum for a change that fundamentally affects both streams simultaneously. Because the change impacts the fixed regulatory infrastructure timeline and completed sprint work from sprints 5–7, the product owner alone lacks the authority and visibility needed to authorize this change. Cascading the decision afterward rather than presenting it holistically risks fragmented analysis and conflicting commitments.

**Why not B:** Splitting the change into separate backlog items for workflow modules and a separate change request for the database schema is unnecessarily bifurcated for a change that has documented cross-stream dependencies. The scenario specifically states the change requires reworking both the database schema and three completed workflow modules simultaneously. Treating these as independent changes obscures the true integrated impact and could lead to inconsistent decisions across the two streams.

**Why not C:** Emailing all stakeholders with the impact assessment and requesting written approval from individual parties bypasses the governance structure designed for exactly this situation. Email-based approval does not constitute a formal change control decision, does not ensure all impacts are weighed collectively, and does not provide the accountability trail that a CCB decision creates. In a hybrid project with regulatory timeline implications, this informal approach fails to meet the rigor required for cross-baseline changes.