Exam PMP topic 1 question 102 discussion

The situation describes an incremental approach ("latest increment approved on the current iteration"). In such environments, regular reviews are vital. When a new sponsor enters, especially one not previously engaged, the project manager's immediate priority should be to bring them fully up to speed on the project's progress, vision, and the value delivered. A product iteration review (or a series of them, if necessary) would be the most effective way to achieve this, allowing the new sponsor to understand what has been built and approve the current increment, thereby preventing the wholesale rejection of artifacts and rebuilding confidence. While a stakeholder analysis (A) is a good foundation, it's the action of engaging the sponsor through specific mechanisms like a detailed review that truly prevents the described issues. The final answer is {D}

The new project sponsor should have been engaged early and key aspects of the project explained in granular detail to avoid misalignment.

Typically, project sponsors do not participate in iteration reviews. There was no reason for the project manager to involve the sponsor in the review. Instead, if a proper stakeholder analysis had been conducted, it would have been possible to understand what the sponsor is interested in and how to communicate with them effectively.

Although I'm not sure how A can solve the issue, D isn't very correct either. If it is an agile project and the sponsor has power to reject the artifacts, it's really weird to assume s/he didn't attend iteration review meetings.

whether its predictive or agile stakeholder engagement is important so according to me A is the most appropriate answer as sponsor is replaced and the question says he was not previously engaged so without engaging him how can one call for iteration review so answer A is the correct one.

The "Stakeholder analysis" is gathering information to determine whose interests should be taken into account. I still don't understand how it could've helped avoid the situation.

D is to preventing

I chose D. But after read the correct answer and question. the question focuses on preventing this situation from happening in the future, rather than finding a solution to the current problem. With this mindset, "A. Performed a stakeholder analysis when the sponsor joined the project" is indeed worth considering.

D is answer.

D is definitely the correct option.

D. Conducted a product iteration review with the new project sponsor

This is not a predictive approach so stakeholder analysis is not needed. The question says it’s an incremental approach so the project sponsor should have attended review. Making D the correct answer.

A. Performed a stakeholder analysis when the sponsor joined the project

D. New sponsor needs to be brought up to speed to get aligned. Stakeholder analysis was done. Only new sponsor has misalignment. D is the best way to handle this.

review of iteration will help in aligning new sponsor with the deliverable of the current iteration

D do a iteration with sponsor

if he have done Stakeheloder analysis this peer was suppose to be informed and engaged so A