PMP · Question #1081
A client has requested that a product be implemented in 4 months and is ready to increase their budget to do this quickly. The project manager cannot comply with the request with the current…
The correct answer is C. Discuss with the client alternative approaches to deliver the minimal viable product (MVP) in 4. When faced with an unachievable client deadline despite increased budget and resources, the project manager should propose delivering a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) within the client's timeframe.
Question
A client has requested that a product be implemented in 4 months and is ready to increase their budget to do this quickly. The project manager cannot comply with the request with the current resources or even additional resources. The project manager estimates that 8 to 12 months are needed for the product to go live. What should the project manager do to address this situation?
Options
- AMotivate the team to work more efficiently and approve overtime in order to meet the client's goal
- BSeek additional resources from the subcontractors and other sources to parallelize the necessary
- CDiscuss with the client alternative approaches to deliver the minimal viable product (MVP) in 4
- DCall a meeting with the client so they will understand that 4 months is not enough time to deliver
How the community answered
(19 responses)- A5% (1)
- B5% (1)
- C74% (14)
- D16% (3)
Why each option
When faced with an unachievable client deadline despite increased budget and resources, the project manager should propose delivering a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) within the client's timeframe.
Motivating the team to work more efficiently and approving overtime is unsustainable and unethical, especially when the project manager has already determined that even additional resources cannot meet the aggressive goal.
Seeking additional resources is unlikely to solve the problem if the project manager has already assessed that even with additional resources, the 4-month goal is unachievable for the full product.
Discussing alternative approaches to deliver an MVP allows the project manager to manage client expectations by providing early value, while realistically accommodating the longer development time needed for the full product. This approach aligns the immediate delivery with the client's urgent timeline while acknowledging the actual effort required for a complete solution.
Simply informing the client that the deadline is not enough time is reactive and does not offer a solution or path forward, which is a key responsibility of a project manager.
Concept tested: Stakeholder management, scope negotiation, MVP strategy
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/boards/get-started/what-is-agile?view=azure-devops
Topics
Community Discussion
5
Yusuf A.Dec 30, 2025C is the right call here. My senior PM always says when a client wants it fast and you literally cannot deliver the full scope no matter the budget, you negotiate scope, not burn out the team. The MVP approach lets you give the client something usable in their 4 month window while the rest follows in phases. One thing I am still curious about though, would you formalize that MVP agreement through a change request or just update the project charter?
Dervla O.Jan 17, 2026C is the answer here because the PM cannot meet the full scope in 4 months no matter the budget, so an MVP lets you deliver something usable within the client's timeline. The stem already rules out additional resources, which kills B immediately - has anyone seen a version of this question where the client refuses to compromise on scope, and if so does the answer shift to D or does it become a change request scenario?
Anjali D.Jan 18, 2026Agree on C for the MVP angle, but worth flagging that if the client flatly refuses scope compromise in a variant, D tends to win over a change request because you are still delivering within the fixed timeline rather than asking to modify it.
Samuel O.Jan 9, 2026C is the right call here. I have seen this exact scenario play out when clients want to throw money at a timeline that physics will not allow, and the honest move is negotiating scope instead of burning out the team or making promises you cannot keep. Delivering an MVP in 4 months keeps the client engaged and gets something functional into their hands while you continue building out the full vision. Option D is too confrontational and offers no solution, while A and B ignore the fact that the PM already determined the work simply cannot be compressed with more bodies or overtime.
Anjali D.Jan 14, 2026Most of our group landed on C, though a few of us first leaned toward D since it seemed like the honest thing to just tell the client no. What sold us on C is that the PM is still actively working with the client to find a workable solution by offering an MVP in the 4-month window, which is a more collaborative approach than just shutting them down. Has anyone actually seen this one on a recent attempt?