The most appropriate first action is to analyze the situation before taking corrective measures. The stakeholder register contains crucial information about stakeholders, including their interests, influence, and potential impact on the program. By reviewing the register, the program manager can properly assess the complaining organizations' standing and ability to affect program outcomes. This analysis is a prerequisite for determining the root cause of the negative commentary and formulating an effective response, such as reworking the engagement plan or escalating the issue.

A. Reworking the stakeholder engagement plan is a corrective action that should be based on an analysis of the problem, not the initial step.

C. Assessing the risk of media coverage is a secondary activity; the primary focus should be on addressing the root cause of the stakeholder dissatisfaction.

D. Discussing the issue with the governance board is an escalation. The program manager should first perform due diligence and analysis before involving governance.

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (4th ed.).

Section 3.4

Program Stakeholder Engagement: This performance domain emphasizes the continuous process of identifying

analyzing

and engaging stakeholders. When an issue like negative commentary arises

the initial response within this framework is to re-evaluate the analysis of the stakeholder(s) in question. The stakeholder register is the primary artifact for this analysis (p. 67). The standard states

"Throughout the program

the program manager and the program team monitor stakeholder relationships and tailor strategies for engaging stakeholders

" which implies analysis precedes action (p. 71).

2. Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.).

Section 13.4

Monitor Stakeholder Engagement: This process involves monitoring overall stakeholder relationships and adjusting strategies. The inputs to this process include the stakeholder register and stakeholder engagement plan. When monitoring reveals a problem

the first step is to use these documents to analyze the situation before determining if change requests (e.g.

updates to the plan) are necessary (p. 530).

The scenario describes systemic failures in the communication process, such as ad-hoc requests, report duplication, and communication gaps, which are negatively impacting program performance. These issues point to a lack of a structured and agreed-upon approach to communication. The Program Communications Management Plan is the formal document that defines the strategy and processes for how, when, what, and to whom information will be communicated. A critical review and update of this plan are necessary to formalize communication channels, set clear expectations for reporting, and eliminate the inefficiencies and gaps described.

A. Program Benefits Management domain: This domain focuses on achieving the program's intended benefits, not the operational mechanics of the communication process, which is the root of the problem.

B. Stakeholder communications requirements: These are inputs to the communications plan. While individual requirements are important, the systemic nature of the problem requires a review of the consolidated plan, not just its components.

C. Program communications report: This is an output of the communication process. Changing a single report is a tactical fix and will not resolve the underlying strategic problem of a flawed communication process.

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (Fourth Edition). Section 5.3

Program Communications Management

p. 69. The standard states that this domain includes the processes to ensure "timely and appropriate generation

collection

dissemination

storage

and ultimate disposition of program information." The issues described are a direct failure of these processes.

2. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (Fourth Edition). Section 5.3.1

Program Communications Management Plan

p. 70. This section details that the plan is the component that describes how communications will be "planned

structured

monitored

and controlled." It is designed to address stakeholder communication requirements

frequency

and methods

which directly addresses the ad-hoc and duplicative nature of the problem.

3. Thiry

M. (2010). Program Management. John Wiley & Sons. In discussions on program governance and control

the text emphasizes the role of the communications plan in establishing a formal structure for information flow to prevent the kind of ad-hoc and inefficient communication described in the scenario. (Relevant concepts in Chapter 6: Program Governance).

The Expected Monetary Value (EMV) is a quantitative risk analysis technique used to determine the average financial outcome of a future event that may or may not occur. It is calculated by multiplying the risk's probability of occurrence by its financial impact.

In this scenario:

Probability (P) = 60% or 0.60

Impact (I) = -$57,000 (a negative value representing a threat or loss)

EMV = P I = 0.60 (-$57,000) = -$34,200.

This value represents the contingency reserve that might be allocated to this specific risk.

B. -$57,000: This represents the full financial impact if the risk occurs, but it fails to factor in the 60% probability of the event happening.

C. -9,500: This is a result of an incorrect calculation and does not represent the EMV based on the provided data.

D. You will need to know the utility function of the organization to determine this: The utility function describes an organization's risk tolerance and is used for decision-making (e.g., choosing between different strategies), not for the mathematical calculation of the EMV itself.

---

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management – Fourth Edition. Section 6.4.4.2

Quantitative Program Risk Analysis

p. 103. The standard defines EMV as a statistical concept calculated by multiplying the value of each possible outcome by its probability of occurrence.

2. Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Sixth Edition. Section 11.4.2.2

Decision Tree Analysis

p. 434. This section explains that EMV is a key concept in decision tree analysis and is calculated by multiplying the probability and impact of risks.

3. Hulett

D. T. (2009). Practical Schedule Risk Analysis. Project Management Institute. Chapter 3

"Risk Analysis Methods

" discusses the fundamentals of quantitative risk analysis

including the calculation of Expected Monetary Value (EMV) as a product of probability and impact.

The process described is a weighting system, a quantitative source selection analysis method. In this technique, the program team establishes a set of evaluation criteria (the "categories") and assigns a numerical weight to each based on its relative importance. Vendors are then scored against each criterion (assigned "points"). The final score is calculated by multiplying the score by the weight for each criterion and summing the results. This provides an objective, rankable basis for comparing proposals and selecting the most suitable vendor, aligning the choice with the program's strategic objectives and priorities.

A. Benefit-cost analysis: This is a financial tool used to compare the expected benefits of an option against its costs, typically expressed as a ratio, not a multi-criteria scoring system.

B. Screening system: This is a preliminary filter that establishes pass/fail criteria to weed out vendors who do not meet minimum requirements before a more detailed evaluation.

D. Preferred vendor list: This is a list of pre-qualified suppliers from which a selection might be made; it is not the evaluation method itself.

---

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Section 12.2.2.5 Source Selection Analysis

p. 487. The guide explicitly defines a weighting system as a method to "assign a numerical score to each of the seller proposals" based on weighted selection criteria.

2. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (4th ed.). Section 5.5

Program Procurement Management

pp. 97-100. This section discusses the need for consistent and effective procurement processes at the program level

for which tools like weighting systems are essential for making objective

benefit-oriented decisions.

3. Ho

W.

Xu

X.

& Dey

P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research

202(1)

16–24. This academic review discusses various supplier selection methods

identifying the weighted scoring method as a fundamental and widely used multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009

RACI is an acronym for a responsibility assignment matrix, a tool used to clarify and define roles and responsibilities in projects and programs. The letters stand for:

Responsible: The person or people who perform the task or do the work.

Accountable: The single individual who is ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the task.

Consulted: Individuals (often subject matter experts) who provide input and whose opinions are sought before a decision or action is taken.

Informed: People who are kept up-to-date on progress or decisions but are not directly involved in the task execution.

This model helps eliminate role confusion and ensures clear communication channels.

A. "Account" is an imprecise term for "Accountable," and "Confirm" is incorrect; the proper term is "Consulted" to denote seeking input, not just confirmation.

C. "Roles" is a general category, not a specific function within the matrix, and "Confirm" is incorrect. The acronym begins with "Responsible."

D. "Roles" and "Action" are not standard terms within the RACI framework. The correct terms are "Responsible" and "Accountable."

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (Fourth Edition). Newtown Square

PA: Project Management Institute. Page 179

Appendix X3

Glossary.

2. Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (Sixth Edition). Newtown Square

PA: Project Management Institute. Page 317

Section 9.1.2.2.

3. Smith

L. W. (2000). Project clarity through a responsibility chart. In PMI® Global Congress 2000—North America

Houston

TX. Newtown Square

PA: Project Management Institute. The paper defines the four key responsibilities as Responsible

Accountable

Consult

and Inform.

The program transition plan is the specific document that outlines the strategy and activities for handing over the program's outputs, outcomes, and benefits to the receiving operational organization. This plan details the orderly release of program-specific resources and the transfer of ongoing resources, knowledge, and responsibilities required for sustainment. It ensures a smooth handover at the end of a phase or the entire program, facilitating the continued realization of benefits by the operational entity.

A. The resource management plan details how resources are acquired, allocated, and managed during the program, not the specific process of transferring them to operations.

C. The communications management plan governs the flow of information, which is part of the transition, but it does not guide the actual transfer activities themselves.

D. The benefits management plan identifies benefits and how they will be sustained, but the transition plan provides the actionable steps for the handover to achieve that sustainment.

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (4th ed.). Section 5.5

Program Transition and Closure Activities

p. 93. "The program manager develops the program transition plan... This plan describes how the program's benefits will be transitioned to the operational or sustaining organization. The transfer of resources

knowledge

and responsibility from the program to the sustaining organization is a key part of this plan."

2. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (4th ed.). Appendix X4

Program Management Artifacts

Section X4.11 Program Transition Plan

p. 161. This section lists the contents of a transition plan

which includes "Transition scope

assumptions

constraints

and schedule

" "Resources to be transferred

" and "Knowledge to be transferred."

The primary justification for a program's existence is its ability to deliver benefits and align with organizational strategy, as outlined in the business case. The scenario explicitly states the program can no longer deliver the planned return on investment (ROI), which invalidates the original business case. When performance metrics indicate that a program's objectives are no longer achievable or justifiable, the program manager has a fiduciary responsibility to the organization. After confirming this through analysis, the appropriate professional action is to recommend the program's cancellation to the governance board to prevent further expenditure of resources on a failing initiative. The governance board holds the ultimate authority to terminate the program.

A. Extending the schedule to reduce costs and resource utilization.

This is a flawed strategy, as extending a schedule typically increases overall costs due to prolonged resource allocation and overhead.

B. Expand the scope and continue the program until return-on-investment objectives can be met.

Expanding scope would increase costs and complexity, further deteriorating the program's financial viability and making the ROI problem worse.

D. Transition the existing program results to the appropriate operational area.

Transitioning to operations is premature and inappropriate because the program has not successfully delivered its intended benefits or met its objectives.

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (4th ed.).

Section 1.5.3

The Relationship Among Portfolios

Programs

and Projects: "If the business case for a program is no longer viable

the program should be terminated

and the resources assigned to the program should be reassigned to other efforts." (p. 13)

Section 4.4.3

Program Monitoring and Control: "The program manager is responsible for monitoring the program’s performance and progress and for recommending changes

including program termination

when appropriate." (p. 65)

Section 5.3.2

Program Governance Board: This section details the role of the governance board

which includes "Authorizing the continuation or termination of the program based on reviews at gates or key milestones." The program manager's recommendation is a key input to this decision. (p. 81)

The risk owner is the designated individual accountable for monitoring an assigned risk and for implementing the agreed-upon risk response plan should the risk event occur. This role is central to effective risk management as it ensures clear responsibility and timely execution of strategies. While the program manager oversees the entire risk management process, the tactical implementation of a specific response is delegated to the risk owner who has the appropriate knowledge and authority to manage that particular risk.

A. Key stakeholders have an interest in the program's outcome but are not automatically assigned the duty to execute risk responses.

B. The project manager (or program manager) is responsible for the overall risk management process, but delegates the execution of individual responses to risk owners.

D. The project sponsor provides high-level governance, funding, and strategic direction, but is not involved in the operational execution of risk plans.

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (4th ed.). Section 5.5

Implement Program Risk Responses

p. 79. The text explicitly states

"Implementation of agreed-upon risk responses is the responsibility of the risk owners."

2. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (4th ed.). Glossary

p. 171. Defines "Risk Owner" as "The person responsible for monitoring the risk and for selecting and implementing an appropriate risk response strategy."

3. Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Section 11.6

Implement Risk Responses

p. 453. This section states that a key aspect of this process is that "The project risk owners should be involved in developing the risk response and should be assigned the responsibility to implement the response."

The primary issue is the new governance board members' lack of familiarity with the program's purpose and their specific roles during the final review. The most effective action is to re-establish the program's foundational context. Reviewing the strategic plan reconnects the program to the organization's objectives, explaining why it was initiated. The benefits management plan details the expected value and outcomes, clarifying what success looks like. This approach directly addresses the board's uncertainty about their roles and expectations by grounding them in the program's core purpose and value proposition, which is the basis for their governance and oversight responsibilities.

A. Reviewing the outcome only with the sponsor is insufficient as the problem lies with the entire board's uncertainty.

B. A change request is inappropriate at the program's end; the focus should be on validating and closing, not altering scope.

D. Presenting status reports provides operational data but fails to address the board's fundamental lack of strategic context and role clarity.

1. Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (4th ed.).

Section 3.4.3

Program Governance Board (p. 41): This section describes the board's role in providing oversight

guidance

and support to the program

ensuring it remains aligned with organizational strategy. Reviewing the strategic plan directly supports this function.

Section 5.3

Benefits Management Plan (p. 59): The standard states

"The benefits management plan is used to guide the program's activities and decision making so that the program's intended benefits are achieved." Presenting this plan clarifies the program's objectives for the board.

Section 1.4.1

Relationship Among Portfolios

Programs

and Projects (p. 9): This section emphasizes that "Programs are a means of achieving organizational goals and objectives." This principle underscores the necessity of linking the program back to the strategic plan for stakeholders like the governance board.

2. Thiry

M. (2010). Program Management. John Wiley & Sons.

In discussions on program governance

Thiry emphasizes that the role of a steering committee (governance board) is to ensure the program delivers value and remains aligned with business strategy. Re-educating a new board on the strategic and benefits plans is a fundamental step in re-establishing this alignment. (Concept pervasive in Chapters 4 & 5 on Governance and Value).

According to the Standard for Program Management (PMI, 4th ed., 2017, §3.2.3), the program manager is responsible for “facilitating stakeholder engagement and conflict resolution” and should “escalate to the governance board only when a resolution cannot be achieved by the concerned stakeholders.”

The first action, therefore, is to engage the affected stakeholders (the two sponsors and other relevant parties), provide objective information (market analysis), and facilitate a decision that all can support. Option D explicitly describes this approach; the other options either bypass stakeholder engagement or escalate prematurely.

A. Bypasses sponsors and governance processes; CEO approval is not the first-line conflict-resolution path.

B. Lets the core team make the decision, ignoring sponsor authority and engagement responsibilities.

C. Escalates to the steering committee before attempting direct stakeholder facilitation, contrary to §3.2.3 guidance.

1. PMI. The Standard for Program Management

4th ed.

2017:

• §3.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement

pp. 44-45 (roles in conflict resolution)

• §2.4 Program Governance

p. 31 (escalation only after failed stakeholder resolution)

2. PMI. Navigating Complexity: A Practice Guide

2014

§5.3

p. 33 (facilitative leadership and stakeholder decision-making).

3. Kerzner

H. “Program Management Maturity

” International Journal of Project Management

2018

36(7)

pp. 947-956 (DOI:10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.05.003) – emphasizes engaging key stakeholders before escalation to governance.