Exam PMP topic 1 question 434 discussion

B is the best choice because it integrates the new regulation into the iterative process naturally. By including a compliance assessment in the next iteration, the project manager ensures the product is evaluated against the regulation without premature scope changes or restarting the tests. This approach maintains agility, leverages the iterative framework, and addresses the regulation efficiently. A is good for a predictive approach not an agile approach, its overly formal.

In a scenario like this, the project manager should initiate a change request to update the project scope to align with the new regulatory requirements. This ensures that the necessary steps to comply are formally integrated into the project plan, reviewed, and approved.

Conducting an iteration review (Option C) would allow the team to assess the impact of the new regulation on the product and the project's progress. During this review, the team can evaluate whether the current approach meets the new regulatory requirements and determine what adjustments are necessary. Based on the outcomes of this review: If significant changes are needed, a change request (Option A) may be submitted. The team could also include compliance checks in the next iteration (Option B). If the regulation has a substantial impact, it might even lead to restarting the tests (Option D).

This is the issue and need changing in scope, so the first we need to do the assessment first to find the impact before logging the change request. So B is correct.

Hello Peers! those who are saying A emphasizing that product has been changed but its not mentioned in the question, it says only the "regulation" or laws related to the product has been changed. for any new laws or compliance, as a project manager you have to assess it first. so B is the right answer

B. Include an assessment to verify compliance in the next iteration

A. Make a change request regarding the project's scope to ensure compliance.

A would cover both B and C and PMP is processes driven.

Given the change in regulations during an iteration, the project manager should address this change promptly. The most appropriate action would be A

B. Include an assessment to verify compliance in the next iteration

This option emphasizes the need to formally document the change in the project's scope to address the new regulation. Making a change request allows the project manager to initiate the necessary adjustments and ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements.

I am going totally against the grain here and say A. If a new regulation is published, we cannot just change our product without formal approval. What if the regulation would make the product completely irrelevant or financially unfeasible? Large, unforeseen changes to the project should always require an approval, in my opinion.

In an iterative development approach, flexibility to adapt to changes is paramount. When faced with a new regulation, as presented in the scenario, it's crucial to assess its implications promptly to ensure compliance without disrupting the project's flow. Option B, "Include an assessment to verify compliance in the next iteration," allows the project manager to seamlessly integrate this evaluation into the project's existing structure. By doing so, the team can understand and address the new requirement in a timely and efficient manner, leveraging the iterative approach's inherent adaptability.

B. Include an assessment to verify compliance in the next iteration

option B (including an assessment to verify compliance in the next iteration) seems like a reasonable approach. Since the project is already using an iterative approach, it would be more practical to incorporate the assessment of the new regulation's compliance within the ongoing iteration cycles. This way, the project can continue its iterative development while also ensuring that the new regulation is being addressed and verified in a timely manner. This approach allows for more flexibility and adaptation without disrupting the project's overall progress.

The main purpose of an iteration review is to inspect the outcome of the iteration and determine future adaptations; feedback from stakeholders is crucial. Your development teams should use the feedback to reflect upon the positive and negative aspects of their performance during iterations.

The regulation has been "enacted" already. I would start tests all over to see if everything is working as expected