PMP · Question #1164
A project manager is using a hybrid approach for a project. The project team created and reviewed the risk log with the stakeholders at the beginning of the project. However, midway through the projec
The correct answer is D. During each iteration and review. In a hybrid project, risks and mitigation strategies should be continuously reviewed, especially during each iteration and review, to maintain alignment between the project team and stakeholders.
Question
Options
- ADuring each steering committee meeting
- BDuring the retrospectives
- CDuring the risk register update
- DDuring each iteration and review
How the community answered
(35 responses)- A9% (3)
- B3% (1)
- C14% (5)
- D74% (26)
Why each option
In a hybrid project, risks and mitigation strategies should be continuously reviewed, especially during each iteration and review, to maintain alignment between the project team and stakeholders.
Steering committee meetings typically occur less frequently and focus on strategic oversight, not the detailed, iterative review needed for continuous risk alignment.
Retrospectives focus on process improvement and team performance, not primarily on aligning project risks and mitigation strategies with stakeholders, though risks might be discussed if they impacted performance.
The risk register update is an output of the risk review process, not the event where alignment with stakeholders specifically occurs.
In agile and hybrid approaches, risks and mitigation strategies should be discussed regularly, ideally during each iteration's planning and review, to ensure continuous alignment and address emergent risks promptly.
Concept tested: Iterative risk management in hybrid/agile projects
Topics
Community Discussion
5
Dervla O.Jul 5, 2026D is correct because hybrid means you get continuous alignment through iteration reviews, not through infrequent committee meetings or a document update that is just a paperwork action. The stem is telling you the team and stakeholders drifted apart, which happens when risk conversations are batched instead of baked into the rhythm of delivery. Retrospectives (B) are internal team events focused on process improvement, and steering committee meetings (A) happen too infrequently to catch misalignment midway through execution. Reading the stem twice helps here: the question is about ongoing alignment between both parties, and only iteration reviews put everyone in the same
Fatima Z.Jul 5, 2026D is the answer here, and I remembered it with my catchy little phrase "Iterate to Alleviate." In a hybrid project you need continuous touchpoints, so reviewing risks during each iteration and review keeps everyone singing from the same song sheet. A and C are too passive or too infrequent for a hybrid environment, and B is just for internal team reflection, not stakeholder alignment. Saw this exact scenario on my exam last spring and almost tripped on B because retrospectives sounded agile, but then I visualized the stakeholders standing outside the retrospective room looking confused, and D clicked.
Zlatan X.Jul 7, 2026D is correct but the program-level governance angle matters here too: iteration reviews are where component risk burndown gets surfaced to stakeholders, which is why a pure team retrospective in B never satisfies that upward visibility requirement.
Mateus R.Jun 24, 2026D is the answer here. Think of it like checking the weather forecast every single day on a road trip instead of just glancing at the seasonal outlook before you leave, because conditions change fast and you need everyone in the car agreeing on what storms are ahead. In a hybrid setup, that daily alignment happens during each iteration and review, which is the technical term for those regular, built-in checkpoints where the team and stakeholders sync up. B is a tempting distractor because retrospectives do involve reflection, but those are strictly internal team improvement sessions, not the place to get stakeholders back on the same page
Zlatan X.Jul 4, 2026I first leaned toward B since retrospectives are the natural reflection point in a hybrid setup, but the question is about realignment with stakeholders, not just internal team process improvement. D wins because iteration reviews are the governance checkpoint where stakeholders are actually present, which makes that the mechanism for keeping risk visibility and mitigation strategy aligned across the component boundary.