PMP · Question #1019
A project manager has received a new request to integrate more features to a product. The team is fully allocated, and there is no budget to acquire new resources What strategy should the project…
The correct answer is A. Discuss the problem with the team and decide how to do the work together. A new feature request arrives, but the team is fully allocated with no budget for additional resources.
Question
A project manager has received a new request to integrate more features to a product. The team is fully allocated, and there is no budget to acquire new resources What strategy should the project manager implement to deal with this situation?
Options
- ADiscuss the problem with the team and decide how to do the work together.
- BAsk the team to accelerate the iterations and avoid interruptions.
- CRecommend that the project sponsor increases the budget to bring new resources.
- DVerify team performance and ask for improvement during daily standup meetings.
How the community answered
(38 responses)- A74% (28)
- B3% (1)
- C8% (3)
- D16% (6)
Why each option
A new feature request arrives, but the team is fully allocated with no budget for additional resources.
When faced with new demands and fixed, fully allocated resources, the most effective strategy is to engage the team directly in problem-solving. Discussing the new request allows the team to collectively assess its impact on current commitments, identify potential trade-offs (e.g., de-scoping existing work, re-prioritizing, or adjusting timelines), and determine the most feasible way to integrate the new feature, fostering ownership and realistic planning.
Asking an already fully allocated team to 'accelerate iterations' without addressing the root cause of overload is unrealistic, unsustainable, and likely to lead to burnout and decreased quality.
While recommending a budget increase is an option, it is often not the first step and might not be feasible; the initial response should involve understanding the team's capacity and exploring internal solutions.
Verifying team performance and asking for improvement during daily stand-up meetings does not address the systemic issue of new work with no additional capacity and can be perceived as dismissive of the team's challenges.
Concept tested: Resource allocation and scope negotiation
Topics
Community Discussion
10
Samuel O.Dec 4, 2025Going with A. In the real world when you get scope shoved at you with zero budget and no spare bodies, you pull the team together and figure out how to absorb it, whether that means reprioritizing the backlog or negotiating tradeoffs with the sponsor. PMI wants you to collaborate with the people doing the work rather than just cracking the whip or throwing money at the problem.
Anjali D.Dec 4, 2025Agree on A, and I would add that the group consensus is the collaboration piece only works if you document the tradeoffs you negotiate so the sponsor signs off on what gets deprioritized, otherwise you end up absorbing the scope silently and setting a precedent.
Luis F.Nov 10, 2025A is the move here because servant leadership means you collaborate with the team on how to absorb new work instead of just pushing them to go faster. B sounds like the trap of forcing acceleration with no extra capacity, and C ignores the constraint that there is no budget. I had almost this exact question on my PMP last month and the keyword that clicked for me was fully allocated, which signaled I needed to bring the devs into the conversation rather than dictate a fix. We did the same thing at my bootcamp capstone when scope crept up and our instructor said the PM role is to facilitate,
Samuel O.Nov 10, 2025Agreed on A, and the real-world version is that when my team is fully allocated and a VP drops a must-have request, the conversation is never just about absorbing the work, it is about what comes off the board to make room for it, because capacity is zero-sum whether the PMP exam frames it that way or not.
Toby R.Dec 2, 2025Leaned toward C first but PMI wants collaborative problem solving, picked A.
Anjali D.Dec 4, 2025Agreed on A, and the tell is PMI frames the team as owning the solution first, so C only comes into play if the team has already tried and failed to resolve it together.
Zlatan X.Nov 23, 2025Leaned toward C first but no budget means self-organizing team collaboration, so A.
Samuel O.Nov 24, 2025A is right but in my experience the self-organizing part only works if someone on the team has actually done this before, otherwise no budget usually turns into no progress.
Anjali D.Nov 30, 2025Our group landed on A. Since the team is fully allocated with no budget for new resources, the only real option is to collaborate with the team on how to absorb the new scope, whether through reprioritization or scope trade offs. B and D are basically asking the team to just work harder, which never sits right with anyone. C is a nonstarter because the question explicitly says there is no budget, so recommending the sponsor increase it ignores the constraint we are working under.
Toby R.Dec 1, 2025Agreed on A, but keep in mind the exam expects you to document the reprioritization decision and loop the sponsor in on the trade offs, not just figure it out internally with the team.