The project manager must first gather facts by reviewing the change log and comparing current activities to the approved scope baseline (the scope statement, WBS, and WBS dictionary). This factual assessment is necessary before determining if a scope change has actually occurred and what subsequent steps (like invoking change control) are required. Jumping to disciplinary action or retroactively approving changes bypasses proper process.

Using a Project Management Information System (PMIS) is a tool for managing information, not a specific schedule compression technique. While it can help track the problem, it does not directly address the schedule delay. Fast-tracking (performing activities in parallel) and crashing (adding resources to critical path tasks) are direct schedule compression techniques. Variance analysis helps understand the cause but doesn’t fix the schedule itself. The question asks for the LEAST effective option for getting back on track.

An unexpected, mandatory regulatory change is an issue—a problem that has already occurred and must be dealt with. Since it alters project requirements (scope), it must be formally evaluated for its impact on the project constraints and then processed through the integrated change control process. It is not a future uncertainty (risk), nor is it a belief (assumption). While it will result in a change request, that request must follow the defined change control process, not bypass it by going directly to the sponsor.

The project charter’s key purpose is to formally authorize the project and the project manager. According to the PMBOK® Guide, it must appoint the project manager and define their authority level. A detailed schedule and WBS are created during planning, after the charter is approved. Vendor contracts are also typically executed during planning or execution, not at initiation.

In a normal project, qualitative risk analysis involves prioritizing risks (e.g., High, Medium, Low) based on their probability and impact. It is statistically unlikely that a project would have zero low-priority risks. This pattern suggests either that the analysis was not done (and all risks were subjectively marked as important) or that the predefined probability/impact scales or thresholds in the risk matrix are set so that everything appears high/medium. It does not necessarily mean the project is in crisis, but it does indicate a potential flaw in the risk prioritization process.

The scenario describes symptoms of poor teamwork and alignment. A facilitating style is most appropriate here. The project manager needs to act as a facilitator to improve interactions, build consensus, clarify priorities through group discussion, and help the team reconnect with project objectives. Directing would likely increase resentment, coaching is more for individual skill development, and laissez-faire would exacerbate the existing lack of coordination.

The immediate priority is to correct the communication breakdown and ensure the stakeholders have the necessary information. The most direct and professional action is to send the report right away and then engage with the stakeholders to confirm receipt and clarify any content. While investigating the root cause (B) and updating plans (A) are important follow-up activities, they do not address the immediate problem. Documenting a lesson learned (D) is done after the situation is resolved.

Control Quality is the process of monitoring and recording results to assess performance and ensure outputs are correct, complete, and meet specifications. Before deliverables are presented for formal acceptance (Validate Scope), they must be verified as correct through quality control activities (e.g., testing, inspection). In this scenario, the delivered component must be checked for defects and adherence to requirements (Control Quality) before it is integrated and accepted as part of the larger project scope.

In a matrix organization, resource conflicts are common. The first step is to consult the foundational agreements that govern the resource’s commitment. This could be documented in the project charter, a service level agreement (SLA), a staff assignment plan, or similar. Understanding the formal commitment provides the objective basis for any subsequent discussion or negotiation (option D). Immediately releasing the resource (A) could harm the project, while immediate escalation (C) is adversarial and should not be the first resort.

The project manager must first gather facts by reviewing the change log and comparing current activities to the approved scope baseline (the scope statement, WBS, and WBS dictionary). This factual assessment is necessary before determining if a scope change has actually occurred and what subsequent steps (like invoking change control) are required. Jumping to disciplinary action or retroactively approving changes bypasses proper process.0