PMP Practice: Determine a change response to move the project forward

In a predictive project with regulatory constraints and fixed deadlines, any change—whether to scope or methodology—must flow through formal change control. The scenario establishes that the compliance audit is the primary driver and the baseline does not include customer enhancements. The correct approach is to evaluate the tracking request through integrated change control, which will assess whether adding this scope is feasible without compromising the regulatory deadline. The change control process will also evaluate whether a methodology shift is appropriate or whether the tracking features should be deferred to a subsequent phase. The key is that the PM does not unilaterally accept, reject, or restructure the project—instead, the change undergoes formal evaluation with stakeholder input. The sponsor's explicit concern about the audit timeline is the closing fact that makes bypassing change control clearly wrong.

**Why not A:** Creating a separate agile workstream for tracking features while maintaining the predictive compliance work sounds reasonable but bypasses the formal change control process. Before establishing a new workstream, the change must be assessed for its impact on the overall project baselines, resource allocation, and the critical regulatory deadline.

**Why not B:** Declining the request immediately because the predictive approach cannot accommodate changes is incorrect. Predictive projects can and do accommodate changes through formal change control. The process exists to evaluate and potentially approve changes, not to automatically reject them.

**Why not D:** Accepting the development team's recommendation to switch to iterative delivery ignores the project's regulatory constraints and fixed compliance deadline. Changing methodology mid-project when the sponsor has expressed concern about the audit timeline would introduce significant risk to the project's primary objective.