PMP · Question #1340
A project manager and project team have brought a project back on track after mapping and removing impediments. During the current sprint, the team reported that an impediment that previously caused m
The correct answer is D. Reassess the issue as part of monitoring and controlling.. When a previously mitigated impediment reoccurs and prior solutions are ineffective, the project manager must reassess the issue to understand its current nature and find a new resolution.
Question
Options
- AEscalate the issue with an impediment to the project sponsor.
- BImplement the mitigation plans listed in the organizational process assets (OPAs).
- CUse the contingency budget to implement schedule compression.
- DReassess the issue as part of monitoring and controlling.
How the community answered
(58 responses)- A3% (2)
- B7% (4)
- C17% (10)
- D72% (42)
Why each option
When a previously mitigated impediment reoccurs and prior solutions are ineffective, the project manager must reassess the issue to understand its current nature and find a new resolution.
Escalating to the project sponsor is premature; the project manager should first attempt to resolve the issue internally through reassessment before involving higher management.
OPAs contain historical information and lessons learned, but the question states previous tasks are not working, implying the existing mitigation plans from OPAs might also be ineffective or need adaptation.
Schedule compression using contingency budget is a reactive measure for schedule delays, but the primary issue is an unresolved impediment that needs understanding before applying a specific resolution technique.
The re-emergence of an impediment with ineffective prior solutions indicates that the problem's root cause or context may have changed, requiring a new analysis and problem-solving approach within the monitoring and controlling process group. This involves identifying the new characteristics of the impediment, evaluating its impact, and developing appropriate, current solutions.
Concept tested: Impediment re-evaluation in project monitoring
Topics
Community Discussion
9
Yusuf A.May 27, 2026D is correct here. My senior always says when a fix that worked before stops working, you do not just keep retrying it or jump straight to escalation, you reassess the issue through monitoring and controlling to figure out what actually changed.
Brenda K.Apr 20, 2026D showed up on my exam last March and I flagged it at the 40 second mark because it is a quick win, not a time sink. The clue is that the old mitigation stopped working, which means you cannot recycle it and must reassess under monitoring and controlling.
Mateus R.Apr 22, 2026Co-sign on D, and the way I remember it is like a doctor switching antibiotics because the infection stopped responding, you do not just double the old dose, you re-evaluate the patient under active monitoring and pick a new treatment, which is exactly the monitoring and controlling work of reviewing and updating risk responses.
Olusegun A.Apr 25, 2026D. Same mitigation failing means reassess, not blindly repeat.
Viktor S.Apr 27, 2026Right, but the reassessment has to actually identify what changed in the environment or threat model, otherwise you are just picking a new control from the same stale playbook.
Mateus R.May 5, 2026Think of it like a farmer whose well keeps going dry. Last year he dug deeper and it worked fine, so he tries digging deeper again this time but hits nothing but rock because the water table has genuinely shifted. You don't just keep swinging the shovel or call the bank for a loan, you get out your surveying gear and figure out what actually changed underground. D is correct because when a mitigation stops working you reassess the root cause as part of monitoring and controlling, not blindly repeat it. A is the tempting trap here because a recurring major delay feels sponsor-worthy, but escalation is premature
Viktor S.May 6, 2026Good analogy and I agree on D, but the sponsor bit needs a caveat: if the reassessment itself is going to burn through float or eat into the contingency reserve, you flag that to the sponsor in parallel, not after.
Viktor S.May 12, 2026B is the move here. The previous mitigation worked, so it should be captured in the OPAs by now, and pulling a proven plan from there beats reinventing the wheel mid-sprint.
Mateus R.May 14, 2026Actually D is the right call here. Think of it like a doctor seeing a patient with the same stubborn cough come back a month later, you would not just re-prescribe what the Organizational Process Assets library suggests and call it a day, you would revisit the risk register to see what changed and update the response. Same idea here, when a previously mitigated risk resurfaces you go back to the risk register to reassess and revise, because the old mitigation clearly did not stick.