If only some of the change initiatives are included in the organizational portfolio, additional checks will be required. What should these checks do?

Question

Options

• AAssess whether corporate-level capacity planning is managed effectively
• BEnsure that there is a common understanding of the portfolio governance framework
• CMonitor the risk that the portfolio governance body is overwhelmed with data
• DEnsure that sub-portfolios remain consistent with the organizational level portfolio

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  9% (3)
• D
  84% (27)

Explanation

When an organizational portfolio contains only some change initiatives, it implies others are managed at a lower level (sub-portfolios). The additional checks must ensure those sub-portfolios remain consistent with the organizational portfolio - same strategic direction, prioritization logic, and governance alignment - because partial inclusion creates a multi-level structure that can drift out of sync without explicit oversight.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A - Capacity planning effectiveness is a general ongoing concern, not a specific consequence of partial portfolio inclusion.
• B - A shared understanding of governance frameworks is a prerequisite for any portfolio, not an extra check triggered by partial inclusion.
• C - Governance body overload is a general risk management issue, unrelated to whether some initiatives are excluded from the top-level portfolio.

Memory tip: Think "partial portfolio = multi-level risk." Whenever you split initiatives across levels, your extra duty is ensuring the sub aligns with the super - sub-portfolios must mirror the organizational portfolio's intent. The keyword to anchor is "consistent" - consistency checks flow downward through the hierarchy.

No community discussion yet for this question.