PMP Practice: Plan and manage resources

This scenario presents a classic tradeoff between scope enhancement and baseline constraints. The project manager must balance the compliance officer's legitimate business concern with the CFO's budget constraints and the project's baseline commitments. Option A is correct because it follows proper change management procedures while exploring creative solutions. By formally documenting the request and presenting options to the change control board—including the possibility of descoping lower-priority features to accommodate the new fraud detection capabilities within the existing budget—Kai provides stakeholders with informed choices rather than making unilateral decisions. The scenario establishes that the original scope meets minimum requirements, which means there may be negotiable elements. This approach respects governance, maintains transparency, and enables stakeholders to make an informed tradeoff decision. The change control board exists precisely to evaluate such competing priorities and determine whether the business value justifies scope, schedule, or budget adjustments.

**Why not B:** While seeking budget approval may ultimately be necessary, immediately pursuing an 8-week board approval process conflicts with the 4-month audit timeline. This approach ignores the possibility of budget-neutral solutions through descoping and jumps to the most disruptive option without exploring alternatives. The change control board should evaluate options first, and attempting to 'accelerate' a board governance process without their involvement is presumptuous.

**Why not C:** While deferring to Phase 2 respects the baseline, this approach dismisses the compliance officer's concerns too quickly without proper analysis. The scenario indicates competitors have already implemented these features and audits begin in four months, suggesting timing matters. Additionally, making this decision unilaterally bypasses the change control board, which should evaluate whether the business justification warrants baseline changes. The PM should present options, not make strategic decisions independently.

**Why not D:** Reducing testing time to accommodate scope changes is a dangerous tradeoff, especially for regulatory compliance software where quality defects could have serious legal and financial consequences. This approach violates change control procedures by making unauthorized scope and quality tradeoffs. Even though regulatory expectations are important, the scenario confirms the original scope meets minimum requirements, so sacrificing quality to add optional features is unjustified. This represents scope creep through informal accommodation rather than proper change management.