PMP Practice: Apply Intervention Strategies

This scenario tests the ability to remove impediments through stakeholder collaboration while balancing competing concerns during recovery. The bankruptcy has created an urgent impediment requiring immediate action, but two key stakeholders have conflicting priorities — speed versus quality verification. The most effective approach is to bring these stakeholders together to jointly assess the situation and develop an integrated solution. This collaborative session allows the team to determine what audit work is genuinely necessary before replacement (versus what can happen in parallel), identify the minimum viable requirements for a replacement vendor, and create a realistic revised schedule that everyone commits to. This approach removes the impediment by converting stakeholder conflict into aligned problem-solving, which is essential when time is critical but quality cannot be compromised in a regulated pharmaceutical environment. The facilities director's concern about speed and the QA manager's concern about verification are both legitimate — the PM's role is to facilitate a solution that addresses both rather than choosing one over the other or escalating prematurely.

**Why not A:** Directing procurement to begin vendor identification while simultaneously commissioning an engineering audit is a reasonable parallel approach, but it pre-commits the project to both tracks before the full implications are understood. The QA manager's concern about auditing incomplete work is legitimate in a pharmaceutical regulated environment—new vendors may be constrained or required to redo work depending on audit findings. Starting these efforts without first aligning both stakeholders risks committing to a replacement timeline that the QA audit may invalidate.

**Why not B:** Escalating to the sponsor and recommending a full suspension of the clean room work stream is premature and overly conservative given the urgency of the situation. The next milestone is only six weeks away, and the procurement team estimates 3–4 weeks for vendor replacement. Suspending the entire work stream without first understanding whether some activities can continue or proceed in parallel unnecessarily extends the schedule impact. Escalation to the sponsor is appropriate after the PM has developed a recommended path forward, not as a first step before assessing options.

**Why not C:** Updating the risk register and implementing a contingency plan treats the bankruptcy as a risk management exercise when it is an active crisis requiring immediate hands-on resolution. While risk register updates and contingency implementation are appropriate steps, communicating the schedule impact to stakeholders without first developing a recovery strategy leaves leadership without actionable information. The scenario requires the PM to actively facilitate resolution rather than report the problem and wait for the contingency plan to unfold.