PMP · Question #1258
A project manager works for a company that has a reputation of delivering environmentally sustainable projects. During the half- yearly review of the project, the project manager raises serious…
The correct answer is C. Propose to close the project because it no longer fits the business values of the organization. When a project faces serious viability concerns due to misalignment with the company's core values, especially with strong stakeholder opposition, the project manager should propose its closure.
Question
A project manager works for a company that has a reputation of delivering environmentally sustainable projects. During the half- yearly review of the project, the project manager raises serious concerns with the project sponsor regarding the project's viability and success. There are some stakeholders who oppose this project on the grounds of compromising land erosion. What should the project manager do?
Options
- ARequest additional resources from the business unit manager due to the project's complexity.
- BCalculate float on the project because it has severely affected the project's major critical path.
- CPropose to close the project because it no longer fits the business values of the organization.
- DCalculate earned value (EV) because the project manager is forecasting a loss for this project in
How the community answered
(38 responses)- A5% (2)
- B24% (9)
- C61% (23)
- D11% (4)
Why each option
When a project faces serious viability concerns due to misalignment with the company's core values, especially with strong stakeholder opposition, the project manager should propose its closure.
Requesting additional resources does not address the fundamental issue of the project's ethical and value misalignment with the company's reputation and stakeholder concerns.
Calculating float is a schedule management technique and does not resolve the core problem of a project conflicting with organizational values or facing strong stakeholder opposition on ethical grounds.
If a project fundamentally conflicts with the organization's strategic objectives, business values, or ethical commitments (like environmental sustainability), and is causing significant stakeholder opposition, proposing its termination is the appropriate action to prevent further resource expenditure on a misaligned endeavor.
Calculating earned value (EV) assesses project performance against budget and schedule, but it does not address the strategic question of whether the project should continue given its conflict with organizational values.
Concept tested: Project alignment with organizational values
Source: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok/project-integration-management
Topics
Community Discussion
8
Prof. SaraMar 17, 2026C is correct because the PMBOK Guide ties project viability directly to ongoing alignment with organizational business values, and a company known for environmental sustainability cannot ignore land erosion concerns raised by stakeholders. Use the VALUE mnemonic I teach in Business Environment domain prep: Value fit, Alignment, viability, Loss of fit, Exit decision. Here the project has lost alignment with the core values that define the organization, so proposing closure is the correct escalation path. A, B, and D all assume the project should continue, which misses the strategic alignment trigger the stem is handing you.
Carlos M.Mar 1, 2026A. Sustainability concerns plus stakeholder opposition mean escalate for more resources.
Prof. SaraMar 4, 2026Actually C is the right call here, Carlos. Opposition and sustainability concerns signal a need to pause and reassess the business case, not throw more resources at a problem that may not be worth solving.
Ola B.Mar 7, 2026C is the right call here. The key is matching the project to what the company actually stands for - if land erosion concerns contradict the organization's core identity around environmental sustainability, the project has lost its alignment. Spinning up a quick stakeholder analysis or business case review in your sandbox helps you see how misalignment kills viability before you ever get to schedule or cost concerns. Does anyone know if the PMP exam treats organizational values alignment as a go/no-go decision trigger similar to how ITIL frames service value, or is it more of a continuous reassessment thing?
Yuki V.Apr 3, 2026Going with D here. If the PM is forecasting a loss and raising viability concerns at a review, earned value is the tool that backs up that forecast with hard numbers before any bigger decisions get made.
Ola B.Apr 4, 2026C is the right call here, Yuki. When viability concerns surface at a review, the next move is a go/no-go decision, not crunching EVA numbers. Stand up a quick decision matrix in your sandbox and you will see the go/no-go path jumps right out.
Zlatan X.Mar 26, 2026B is the play here. When stakeholder opposition on land erosion threatens viability and the critical path gets hit, float analysis gives the governance layer the schedule interdependency data needed to make the call on benefits realization.
Prof. SaraMar 29, 2026C is correct because stakeholder opposition on land erosion is fundamentally a risk register issue, and quantitative risk analysis gives governance the probability and impact data needed to decide on benefits realization, not float analysis. Remember the mnemonic RIBA, Risk Impacts Benefits Analysis, which ties directly to Domain 3 where you triage stakeholder-driven risks before touching the critical path.