PMP Practice: Identify and Analyze Conflict Sources

This scenario tests collaborative conflict resolution with competing stakeholder priorities in a hybrid environment. The project manager's role is to facilitate transparent dialogue among all parties to surface concerns, clarify trade-offs, and enable informed decision-making. Since both stakeholders have equal authority per the project charter, neither can unilaterally override the other. A joint meeting allows the VP of Marketing to explain the business urgency of the campaign, the Product Owner to articulate the long-term value foundation, and the development team to surface technical constraints. This collaborative approach helps the group explore solutions such as phased delivery, adjusting scope, or re-sequencing work. The PM acts as a neutral facilitator helping stakeholders negotiate toward a mutually acceptable path forward, which is the appropriate conflict management approach when authority is shared and the issue requires balancing competing legitimate interests.

**Why not A:** Having the development team create effort estimates and then recommending the Marketing VP's request based on its deadline is not neutral facilitation. The PM would be advocating for one stakeholder over the other, which is inappropriate when both have equal authority per the project charter.

**Why not B:** Escalating to the project sponsor when both stakeholders have equal authority abdicates the PM's facilitation responsibility. The conflict between two equally authorized stakeholders is precisely the type of situation where the PM should facilitate collaborative dialogue before resorting to escalation.

**Why not C:** Reviewing the business case and making a unilateral prioritization decision oversteps the PM's role. When both stakeholders have equal authority per the charter, the PM should not decide between their priorities but rather facilitate a transparent discussion where trade-offs can be explored jointly.