PMP Practice: Update Documentation for Changes

In a predictive project with established governance thresholds and board-approved baselines, the project manager must follow the documented change control process, especially when a change exceeds the financial authority limits defined in the project charter. The scenario specifies that changes over $250,000 require board approval, and this change is estimated at $340,000. The PM's role is to facilitate proper governance, not circumvent it due to stakeholder pressure. Documenting the change request with a complete impact analysis (cost, schedule, resource, and risk implications) and submitting it through the established approval process ensures transparency, maintains organizational governance, and provides decision-makers with the information needed to make an informed choice. The sales director's comment about agile is irrelevant—the project's methodology and governance were deliberately chosen for this infrastructure program, and individual stakeholder preferences do not override organizational process. The scenario's closing fact—that the charter explicitly defines the $250,000 threshold—makes following the formal process the only appropriate action.

**Why not A:** Scheduling a meeting to discuss converting the project to an agile approach is a significant strategic response to what is, at its core, a straightforward change control situation. The blockchain integration is a discrete, well-defined scope addition to an established infrastructure program—not evidence that the entire project's methodology needs to change. Reconsidering the fundamental delivery approach mid-project in response to a single change request would be disproportionate and would destabilize the governance of a board-approved $340,000+ initiative.

**Why not B:** Creating a separate agile workstream for the blockchain integration treats the blockchain addition as an ongoing, evolving initiative rather than a defined scope change. The project charter specifies $250,000 as the board approval threshold, and this change at $340,000 exceeds that limit regardless of how it is structured. Creating a parallel agile workstream does not circumvent the board approval requirement and would introduce an unauthorized methodology change to a project with approved predictive governance and established baselines.

**Why not C:** Acknowledging business urgency and authorizing preliminary design work before formal approval is a form of scope creep that violates the charter's governance provisions. In a predictive project with formal change control and a board-defined approval threshold, authorizing any work—even preliminary design—before the change is formally approved commits organizational resources without proper authorization. The scenario's closing fact that the charter explicitly defines the $250,000 threshold makes any pre-approval work authorization inappropriate, regardless of how the business urgency is framed.