Q: 1
A project team is engaging a development team in another country to develop software. During
progress reviews, the project manager identified completion date delays due to rework because
there were different interpretations of the client's needs.
What should the project manager do?
Options
Discussion
B. The main issue is the misinterpretation of requirements, so bringing everyone together to clear things up should help avoid more rework. Seen this come up on mock exams and pretty sure that's PMI's expected step before jumping to prototyping or escalation. Anyone disagree?
Option B here. Pushing schedule (A) or escalating (C) skips over fixing the root problem, which is unclear requirements. D looks tempting but still feels like a workaround for not clarifying with stakeholders first. Seen similar on practice exams, pretty sure B is expected, unless someone thinks I missed a trick?
B , similar scenario pops up in official practice questions and guides. It’s mainly about clearing up requirement confusion before making any technical moves. If I’m missing something, let me know.
I’d say D fits here, since creating prototypes would help clear up misinterpretations by giving everyone something concrete to react to. Saw a similar question in practice exams and prototyping was usually the way to align teams on requirements. Open if anyone thinks it's B for some PMI-specific logic though.
C or D here. Escalating for more time (C) sometimes feels right if the delays are already stacking up, though D could also help clarify stuff with prototypes. I know B is what a lot pick since it tackles miscommunication, but hard to ignore the urge to escalate if deadlines keep slipping. Anyone else see C as reasonable?
Seen this type of scenario in some practice tests, official guide covers it too. B makes sense because clarifying requirements with stakeholders is what addresses the root issue here, not jumping to solutions yet.
Its B. Gotta clarify requirements directly with the stakeholders first, especially when the issue is all about different interpretations. D makes sense in some cases, but here I'm pretty sure B's more in line with PMI logic.
I think D makes sense since prototypes could directly show what's needed and avoid more confusion. D
Its B. The question says the issue is different interpretations, so clarifying requirements with stakeholders tackles that head on. I get why people pick D, but I think B is more direct here. Anyone disagree?
B tbh, that's what I'd pick here. The main issue is lack of shared understanding, so calling a meeting with all stakeholders to clarify requirements gets straight to the root cause. Prototyping (D) helps but only after everyone agrees what needs building. Open to other thoughts if anyone's seen this worded differently.
Be respectful. No spam.
