Skip to content
PMPMedium

PMP Practice: Implement Resolution Strategies

Question 6 of 10 in Manage Conflicts

Dakota Chen-Blackwood is managing a 14-month infrastructure upgrade project for Jugaad Innovation Corp, a biotech research facility. Two senior team members—Diego, the network architect, and Lila, the security lead—have been in escalating conflict over firewall placement strategy. Diego insists on deploying at the network perimeter for performance reasons, while Lila demands segmented internal firewalls to meet compliance requirements. The conflict has now spilled into team meetings, with both refusing to collaborate on the integrated design document due next week. Other team members report feeling uncomfortable and avoiding involvement. The project's critical path includes finalizing this design within five days to avoid delaying hardware procurement. Dakota has confirmed that both approaches have technical merit and that a hybrid solution is feasible but requires joint analysis. What should Dakota do to resolve this conflict?
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: Meet privately with Diego and Lila together to facilitate a collaborative discussion focused on shared project objectives and guide them toward developing a hybrid solution that addresses both performance and compliance needs

Explanation

The most effective approach is to facilitate a collaborative discussion between the conflicting parties focused on shared objectives. The scenario establishes that both approaches have technical merit and a hybrid solution is feasible but requires joint analysis. This is a classic conflict resolution situation where the project manager should use a collaborative problem-solving approach to help the team members work through their disagreement together. By meeting privately with both parties simultaneously, Dakota can create a safe environment to explore underlying interests, refocus on project goals (performance AND compliance), and guide them toward co-creating a solution. This approach not only resolves the immediate design issue but also rebuilds the working relationship needed for the remaining 14 months of the project. The scenario's closing facts—that the conflict is disrupting team dynamics, a hybrid solution is feasible, and both perspectives have merit—make collaboration the clearly superior choice over decision-making by authority or separation of duties.

**Why not B:** Escalating to the sponsor is premature. The project manager has the authority and information needed to resolve this conflict. Escalation should be reserved for situations where the PM lacks authority, resources, or information—none of which apply here. Escalating would also miss the opportunity to restore the working relationship between Diego and Lila, which is essential for project success.

**Why not C:** While the PM making a unilateral decision would resolve the immediate design question, it would fail to address the underlying conflict and damaged relationship. This forcing approach would likely leave both team members feeling unheard and could create resentment that surfaces later in the project. The scenario indicates that collaboration is possible and would produce a better technical outcome through joint analysis.

**Why not D:** Separating the responsibilities avoids the conflict rather than resolving it. This compromise approach might seem attractive but would fail to produce the integrated design needed, as the scenario states a hybrid solution requires joint analysis. It would also allow the damaged relationship to persist, continuing to disrupt team dynamics for the remaining project duration.

Key Concept

This question covers Implement Resolution Strategies under Manage Conflicts (People).

Share:

This is 1 of 100 free PMP questions

Unlock 6,300+ PMP practice questions with detailed explanations, progress tracking, and exam readiness prediction.

Unlock All Questions