PMP Practice: Update Documentation for Changes

In a predictive project with established governance, all scope changes—regardless of who requests them or their business value—must follow the formal change control process. The project manager's role is to document the request with its business justification, impact analysis, and submit it for proper evaluation. The change control board exists specifically to assess requests like this against project constraints, organizational priorities, and strategic value. Even if the CEO did provide verbal approval, predictive methodology requires documented authorization through proper channels to maintain baseline integrity, ensure stakeholder alignment, and protect the project from scope creep. The operations director's claim of CEO approval and the significant business value ($8M contract) make this a substantive request worthy of formal evaluation—not immediate rejection or unauthorized action. The closing fact that Ziggy has verified the charter and baseline do not include this feature confirms that proper change control is required, not informal workarounds.

**Why not A:** Contacting the CEO directly to confirm verbal approval before taking any further action conflates verification of claimed authorization with the formal authorization process itself. Even if the CEO confirms the verbal approval, it does not change the project manager's obligation to route the change through the integrated change control process. Verbal confirmations—even from the CEO—cannot substitute for documented approval in a predictive project with established governance, and acting on verbal authorization alone would violate the change control framework.

**Why not C:** Explaining to the operations director that the change cannot be accommodated due to schedule and budget constraints is an inappropriate unilateral rejection of a potentially high-value change request without evaluation. The operations director has presented a business case with significant financial upside ($8M annual contract), and the project manager does not have the authority to reject this request based solely on project constraints. The change control process exists precisely to evaluate such trade-offs with the appropriate decision-makers.

**Why not D:** Beginning preliminary technical analysis while the change request is being formalized authorizes resources and potentially commits the team to work on a change that has not yet been approved through the established governance process. Even preliminary technical analysis consumes team capacity that is currently fully allocated. This action blurs the line between evaluation and authorization, and in a predictive project with formal change control, the assessment of feasibility should be part of the formal change request evaluation, not an independent activity initiated before the process begins.