Skip to content
PMPMedium

PMP Practice: Manage scope changes

Question 4 of 5 in Plan and Manage Scope

Pick an answer below — you'll get the explanation instantly, no signup.

Sky Okonkwo is managing a hybrid project at Cardamom Circuit Games to develop a cloud-based analytics platform. The predictive infrastructure workstream follows a detailed scope baseline, while the user interface is being developed using iterative sprints with evolving requirements. During a sprint review, the product owner approves several UI features that depend on backend API capabilities not included in the infrastructure scope baseline. The development team has already started implementing these features based on the product owner's approval. Infrastructure team members express concern that adding these APIs mid-project will delay their committed deliverables by three weeks. The product owner insists the features are essential for the minimum viable product and were always intended. What should Sky do to address this situation?
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: Facilitate a joint session with both teams and the product owner to assess the scope change impact, update the scope baseline through formal change control for the infrastructure workstream, and collaborate on integrating the API work into upcoming sprint planning

Explanation

In a hybrid project with both predictive and adaptive components, scope management must honor the different approaches while maintaining overall project coherence. The infrastructure scope baseline requires formal change control, while the agile UI work allows for evolving requirements. The correct recovery action is to bring all parties together to assess the full impact, follow proper change control for the predictive workstream, and collaboratively integrate the work. This addresses the root cause—misalignment between the two workstreams—and establishes a path forward that respects both methodologies. The scenario includes a closing fact: the development team has already started work, making immediate collaborative recovery essential rather than deferral or escalation.

**Why not A:** Asking the product owner to deprioritize UI features does not resolve the governance issue. The infrastructure scope baseline was changed without formal change control, and shifting UI priorities does not address the fact that backend APIs were added outside the approved scope or reconcile the predictive workstream's disrupted baseline.

**Why not B:** Pausing implementation and deferring APIs to a future phase ignores the fact that the development team has already started work. This creates waste and does not address the integration need between the two workstreams. Additionally, the product owner identified these features as essential for the minimum viable product.

**Why not C:** Escalating to the sponsor for approval of the scope change and delay bypasses the collaborative recovery that both teams need. The PM should first facilitate a joint assessment to understand options and impacts before escalating, and the sponsor will need an informed recommendation rather than just a request for delay approval.

Key Concept

This question covers Manage scope changes under Plan and Manage Scope (Process).

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