Q: 1
SIMULATION During a gate review meeting, the deliverable was rejected by the customer. INSTRUCTIONS Review the dashboard. • Part 1: Drag and drop each task, placing them in the correct order based on the project change control process. • Part 2: Select the proper document(s) to be updated. If at any time you would like to bring back the initial state of the simulation, please click the Reset All button.
Drag & Drop
Discussion
Define new requirements, assess schedule/risk/cost, update and test, then demo. Update statement of work, schedule, change log. Pretty standard process.
Define new requirements and record changes → Assess schedule, risk, and cost → Update/test deliverable → Perform a demonstration. Docs: Statement of work, Schedule, Change log. Saw a similar question on a practice set, pretty sure that's the right flow. Risk register feels like a trap here if you're not careful.
If the original requirements had already been accepted and it's just a minor change or clarification, sometimes only the change log (and maybe the schedule) get updated, not necessarily the full SOW. Mapping is: define new requirements > assess schedule/risk/cost > update and test > demo; docs: statement of work, schedule, change log. I think that's what they expect unless there's already acceptance. Anyone see guidance that contradicts this?
Define new requirements, assess schedule/risk/cost, update and test deliverable, then demo. Docs to update: Statement of work, schedule, change log. Change control always starts with the formal requirements change. Pretty sure that's how it's tested here, but let me know if anyone did it differently.
Honestly, these drag-and-drops are always such a pain. Define requirements, assess schedule/risk/cost, update/test, then demo. SOW, schedule, change log.
Define new requirements, assess schedule/risk/cost, update and test, demo. Docs are SOW, schedule, change log.
Define new requirements, assess schedule/risk/cost, update and test, demo; update SOW, schedule, change log.
Define new requirements → assess schedule/risk/cost → update/test deliverable → demo; update SOW, schedule, change log. But if customer formally accepted initial requirements before, I'd check if SOW actually needs a full update. Anyone else run into that scenario in practice?
Yeah matches what I'd do: define new requirements, assess impacts, update/test, then demo. SOW, schedule, and change log updated.
If the deliverable got rejected, you always define new requirements first then check the impact (schedule/cost/risk), then update and test before demo. Docs to update are Statement of work, Schedule, and Change log. Pretty sure that's right, unless requirements were unofficially changed before the meeting?
Be respectful. No spam.
Which of the following represents the critical path of the project?