PMP · Question #1008
A virtual team has disagreements about the client's requirements. Although the requirements are written, the language seems ambiguous for some of the team members who are working abroad. The local…
The correct answer is B. Train all project team members to recognize and discuss cultural differences E. Address the language ambiguity in the requirements to ensure all team members understand. The project manager should address the language ambiguity in the requirements and train all team members on cultural differences to foster mutual understanding and resolve conflicts.
Question
A virtual team has disagreements about the client's requirements. Although the requirements are written, the language seems ambiguous for some of the team members who are working abroad. The local team members argue that the language is clear, but that there is a lack of competence from the international team members. Which two actions should the project manager take? (Choose two.)
Options
- AAssign projects with local clients to the local project team members.
- BTrain all project team members to recognize and discuss cultural differences
- CEnsure that local team members explain the requirements to the international team members
- DProvide training to international team members to ensure their understanding of the requirements.
- EAddress the language ambiguity in the requirements to ensure all team members understand
How the community answered
(26 responses)- A19% (5)
- B65% (17)
- C8% (2)
- D8% (2)
Why each option
The project manager should address the language ambiguity in the requirements and train all team members on cultural differences to foster mutual understanding and resolve conflicts.
Assigning projects with local clients to local team members does not resolve the immediate conflict or address the underlying issues of ambiguous requirements and cultural insensitivity within the current team.
Training all project team members to recognize and discuss cultural differences fosters a more inclusive environment and helps bridge communication gaps, preventing future misunderstandings that stem from diverse backgrounds and communication styles.
While local team members explaining requirements might offer a temporary fix, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of ambiguous written requirements or foster long-term cultural understanding across the team.
Providing training only to international team members implies their competence is solely at fault and fails to address the potential for cultural biases or unclear documentation originating from the local team.
Addressing the language ambiguity in the requirements directly solves the root cause of the disagreements by ensuring that the documentation is clear, precise, and universally understood by all team members, regardless of their location.
Concept tested: Communication clarity, cultural awareness, team development
Source: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok
Topics
Community Discussion
8
Samuel O.Oct 21, 2025B and E are the right picks here. I have seen this exact dynamic on distributed teams and the fix is never to have one side "school" the other, you clean up the source document so the language is unambiguous, and you get everyone trained on cultural awareness so the local team stops blaming competence when it is really a communication gap.
Luis F.Nov 3, 2025Got B and E on my attempt last week, and yeah, the wording is tricky. D is super tempting because if the international folks don't get it, just train them, right? But that assumes the problem is their competence, which is exactly what the local team is unfairly claiming. The real root cause is the ambiguous language in the requirements, so E is mandatory, and B helps address the cultural bias and communication breakdowns causing the friction in the first place.
Orla P.Nov 12, 2025Picked C and D first because it seemed practical to just have the local folks walk the international team through the docs and shore up their skills. Then I noticed the stem is really pointing at two root causes, the ambiguous language itself and the cultural friction where locals jumped straight to blaming competence. E fixes the actual requirements so everyone reads the same thing, and B tackles the cultural bias piece head on instead of sidestepping it. Confirmed B and E on exam last week.
Toby R.Nov 15, 2025The "blaming competence" phrasing is the tell for B, because the scenario is not really about a skills gap at all, and E is the only option that touches the source of the ambiguity rather than just coping with it afterward.
Toby R.Oct 29, 2025C is definitely one of the picks because the local team members already grasp the requirements, so having them walk the international folks through it closes the gap fast without waiting on formal training. The ambiguity is real but you need the team aligned now, not after a workshop.
Samuel O.Oct 31, 2025B and E are the right picks here Toby. In my experience the local team walking people through informal interpretations just reinforces the ambiguity instead of resolving it, whereas documenting shared definitions and running a formal requirements review is what actually gets everyone aligned without people walking away with different understandings of the same conversation.
Prof. SaraOct 18, 2025D is a lock here because the stem literally frames the issue as a competence gap, which maps to the Develop Team domain where you close skills gaps with targeted training. I would pair D with E to fix the root ambiguity, since B sounds nice but cultural training does not resolve a written requirements defect.
Samuel O.Oct 20, 2025Actually B and E is the correct pair. In my experience when a team consistently produces vague or missing requirements, that is not a training problem, it is a cultural one where people do not feel safe pushing back or asking clarifying questions, so B addresses the root cause and E fixes the immediate defect.