The correct approach is to first reference the agreed foundational documents (charter/business case) to ground the discussion. This demonstrates governance while showing respect for the stakeholder. The goal is to move from a solution (the feature) to understanding the underlying business problem, which might be solvable within the project’s agreed scope. Immediate escalation or blind agreement undermines stakeholder management and scope control.

A true benefit must be measurable, an improvement, and linked to an outcome. Option B clearly states a measurable reduction in time (60 seconds) and links it to a tangible business improvement (5% increase in bookings). The other options describe outputs (the system), activities (training), or project deliverables (plan), not the ultimate beneficial change the project is meant to deliver.

A supplier’s historical performance is a potential future problem (uncertain event) that has not yet occurred on *this* project. Therefore, it is a Risk. The proactive approach is to plan a mitigation strategy. Treating it as an Issue (current problem) or an Assumption (blind hope) is poor practice. While a decision may be needed later, the initial step is to log and assess it as a risk.

The quality section of a PID must define the ‘what’ (standards and criteria), the ‘how’ (approach for QC and QA), and the ‘who’ (responsibilities, implied in the approach). It sets the framework for quality without diving into premature detail like full specifications. Options A and B are too granular or irrelevant, while Option D is background information, not a directive for quality management on *this* project.

Adding resources (like contractors) to critical path activities to shorten the schedule is the classic definition of ‘Crashing’. The trade-off is almost always an increase in cost (for the additional resources). Fast-tracking (Option B) involves doing activities in parallel, not adding resources. The action described does not reduce scope (A) and is a response tactic, not necessarily a formal re-baselining (D) on its own.

The business case is a living document. During delivery, its primary role is as a benchmark for continued justification. If circumstances change, the project manager and board should refer to the business case to ask: ‘Are the benefits still achievable? Do the costs still outweigh the benefits? Is this still the best way to meet this need?’ This enables informed decisions about continuing, changing, or stopping the project. It is not a rigid contract (A), a technical manual (C), or just an archive (D).

End-stage assessments are a key governance control. Their purpose is to provide a formal checkpoint where the project board, armed with information from the project manager, decides if the project is still viable and should commit further resources to the next stage. It’s a decision point on whether to ‘Go,’ ‘Hold,’ or ‘Stop.’ While lessons may be reviewed, it is not primarily a celebration (A), a nit-picking audit (C), or a contractual negotiation (D).

This is the core definition from bodies like BCS and AXELOS. The key differentiators are temporariness (has a defined start and end) and uniqueness (creates something new). BAU is about running, maintaining, and repeating processes. While projects often are strategic and can be large, the defining characteristics are temporariness and uniqueness, not size, management title, or strategic level.

The Facilities Manager has high interest (they care about the outcome) but lower power. The recommended strategy for this quadrant is ‘Keep Informed.’ They need to feel involved and see that their area of interest is being addressed through regular, transparent communication. ‘Manage closely’ (B) is for high-power, high-interest stakeholders. ‘Keep satisfied’ (A) is for high-power, low-interest. ‘Monitor’ (D) is for low-power, low-interest.

The correct approach is to first reference the agreed foundational documents (charter/business case) to ground the discussion. This demonstrates governance while showing respect for the stakeholder. The goal is to move from a solution (the feature) to understanding the underlying business problem, which might be solvable within the project’s agreed scope. Immediate escalation or blind agreement undermines stakeholder management and scope control.0