PMP Practice: Execute the Change Control Process

In a hybrid project, different components operate under different change management approaches based on their characteristics. The predictive architecture stream requires formal change control because it involves foundational technical work with dependencies and structured phases—changes here impact baselines, schedules, and potentially contracts. The agile UI stream uses adaptive planning where requirements emerge and evolve—changes are managed through backlog refinement and prioritization rather than formal approval gates. The correct approach respects each stream's governance model: submit architecture changes through the established change control process to properly assess impacts on baselines and obtain formal approval, while treating UI requirements as new backlog items to be prioritized by the product owner during normal sprint planning. This maintains the integrity of each approach while ensuring the mandatory regulatory requirement is addressed appropriately in both streams. The scenario specifies the sponsor has already authorized the scope expansion, confirming executive support exists, and both teams are actively working, making stream-specific change management the most effective path forward.

**Why not A:** Processing all changes through the formal change control board regardless of which stream they affect would apply predictive governance to the agile UI stream, where it is not the established management approach. Requiring CCB approval for backlog additions to the iterative UI stream would slow the agile team unnecessarily and undermine the hybrid model's purpose, which is to let each stream operate under the governance appropriate to its characteristics.

**Why not B:** Adding all changes—both architecture and UI—to the product backlog eliminates the formal change control process entirely for the architecture stream, where it is required. The predictive architecture stream has a fixed baseline with dependencies and regulatory implications; changes to the database schema cannot be managed through backlog prioritization without proper impact assessment against the established baseline and formal approval. This approach applies agile governance to a context that demands predictive rigor.

**Why not C:** Halting both streams to conduct an integrated impact analysis before restarting them simultaneously introduces unnecessary disruption to a team midway through Sprint 7 and to an architecture build phase. While integration between the streams is important, both teams can continue their existing work while analysis for the new regulatory requirement is conducted. A complete halt of both workstreams would delay project progress without proportionate benefit, especially since the sponsor has already authorized the scope expansion.