PMP · Question #1405
A project manager works at an organization that is transitioning to agile. The development team has recommended using a burndown chart to provide visibility on project progress to all stakeholders…
The correct answer is A. Develop a communications management plan for each category in the stakeholder register. To ensure effective communication during an agile transition, the project manager should develop a comprehensive communications management plan, customizing communication strategies for each stakeholder category.
Question
A project manager works at an organization that is transitioning to agile. The development team has recommended using a burndown chart to provide visibility on project progress to all stakeholders. What should the project manager do to ensure effective communication throughout the project?
Options
- ADevelop a communications management plan for each category in the stakeholder register.
- BAdvise the project management office (PMO) to use the burndown chart as the single
- CInclude the burndown chart in a monthly report that is distributed to all stakeholders.
- DPostpone the recommendation since the organization does not currently have a defined agile
How the community answered
(56 responses)- A77% (43)
- B14% (8)
- C5% (3)
- D4% (2)
Why each option
To ensure effective communication during an agile transition, the project manager should develop a comprehensive communications management plan, customizing communication strategies for each stakeholder category.
Effective communication requires understanding the diverse needs of different stakeholder groups. Developing a communications management plan that addresses each category in the stakeholder register ensures that appropriate information, frequency, and formats are used for all audiences.
Relying on a single burndown chart for all stakeholders might not be sufficient, as different stakeholders have varying information needs and levels of understanding, and the PMO should not unilaterally dictate a single tool.
Including the burndown chart in a monthly report for all stakeholders limits the agility and real-time visibility that burndown charts are meant to provide, and it might not meet the diverse communication needs of all stakeholders.
Postponing a valuable agile practice like using a burndown chart due to an undefined agile methodology hinders the organization's transition and improvement efforts, rather than promoting effective communication.
Concept tested: Agile communication planning
Source: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok/communications-management
Topics
Community Discussion
19
Bao N.Dec 1, 2025A is the right call here because communication needs should always be mapped back to the stakeholder register, not handled with a one-size-fits-all tool. The burndown chart is a great agile artifact but stakeholders have different information needs and preferences, especially during a transition to agile. B and C both force everyone into a single channel which defeats the purpose of tailored communication, and D just stalls progress for no real reason. I see people pick C a lot on practice exams because it sounds proactive, but monthly reports defeat the whole point of agile transparency anyway.
Grace U.Jun 3, 2026The burndown chart idea is genuinely useful, but visibility is only one piece of the puzzle. The real challenge here is that you have different stakeholders with different information needs, different levels of agile familiarity, and different preferences for how they receive updates. A communications management plan addresses all of that by mapping who needs what, how often, and through which channel, so the burndown chart can live inside a broader structure rather than floating on its own. The answer is A. Building a communications management plan tailored to each stakeholder category ensures that no one is left behind during this transition, whether they are executives who want a summary or team members who live in the daily details. Options C and D both miss the point, C because frequency alone does not fix the mismatch between what stakeholders need and what they receive, and D because postponing sound recommendations just to wait for organizational maturity is not proactive project management. Option B oversteps by pushing a tool decision onto the PMO rather than solving the actual communication problem at the project level.
Wesley A.Jun 5, 2026Grace nailed the core of it, though I'd add that when I failed the first time I got burned by conflating "communications management plan" with just a stakeholder register, so make sure you understand those as distinct artifacts if that distinction shows up in a scenario question.
Hiroshi T.Apr 28, 2026A. PMI's stance is that communication is planned, not improvised, regardless of the development approach. Per the PMBOK Guide, the communications management plan is tailored to stakeholder needs as captured in the stakeholder register, so a burndown chart becomes one input rather than the entire strategy.
Prof. SaraNov 24, 2025I first leaned toward C because sending a burndown chart in a monthly report sounded like a clean way to keep stakeholders informed, but the word effective in the stem is the key. Different stakeholder categories need tailored communication approaches, so mapping a communications management plan to the stakeholder register is the PMP-aligned move here.
Bao N.Nov 24, 2025Agree on B, but the real trap is that C still looks right if you skim past "effective" and just see "keep stakeholders informed," so flag that keyword every time.
Zlatan X.May 23, 2026Leaned toward C, but stakeholder categories demand tailored cadences, so A governs.
Mei-Ling H.May 10, 2026First leaned toward B because it mentions the burndown chart the team recommended, but the word "single" is the qualifier that kills it, since effective communication means tailoring to different stakeholder needs, not one-size-fits-all. A wins because you still need a communications management plan mapped to the stakeholder register categories even in an agile transition.
Hiroshi T.May 11, 2026A is correct, but the real qualifier is stakeholder engagement needs, not just communication needs, per the PMBOK Guide section on Monitor Stakeholder Engagement which feeds back into the communications management plan.
Viktor S.May 28, 2026That answer makes sense once you stop treating "burndown chart" as the actual subject of the question and read what it's really asking: who needs what information and when. The burndown chart is just the trigger that surfaces the real gap. Here's what I want to understand though: do you know WHY option A works here, or are you just pattern-matching "communications management plan" as the safe PMP answer? Because if you can't explain what the stakeholder register has to do with the communications plan and why tailoring it per category matters, you're going to miss the next variant of this question.
Wesley A.May 30, 2026The stakeholder register tells you who each person is and what they care about, and the communications management plan is where you document how you will reach them, so together they force you to stop broadcasting the same update to everyone and actually match the message to the audience, which is exactly why variants of this question keep tripping people up on the real exam.
Orla P.May 17, 2026Saw this one on my PMP last spring and picked A because the keyword is all stakeholders, which means you need to map communication methods to stakeholder categories rather than relying on one chart for everyone. The burndown chart is a good tool but B and C force a single artifact on people with different information needs, and D is just avoidance.
Wesley A.May 13, 2026A is right because the communications management plan is how you match each stakeholder to the right format and frequency, so a burndown chart reaches the people it actually helps while executives still get what they need. The agile tool is not the point, the plan that governs how and to whom it gets delivered is.
Ola B.Jun 1, 2026Confirmed A on exam. A per-stakeholder comms plan beats a one-size-fits-all burndown.
Mei-Ling H.Jun 3, 2026Agreed on A, but watch the qualifier if the stem says "project-level" rather than "stakeholder-level", because that wording can flip the answer toward a single burndown or status report on some variants.
Dervla O.May 20, 2026D feels right to me because the stem says the org is still transitioning, so standing up a burndown chart without a defined agile framework in place means nobody will interpret it consistently, and you are essentially building communication infrastructure on an unstable foundation. Get the process established first, then layer in the artifacts.
Wesley A.May 23, 2026Dervla, the stem is asking what to do right now to track remaining work during the transition, and a burndown chart does exactly that regardless of whether the framework is fully baked yet. Option A is correct because the burndown gives the team a visual, real-time picture of work left versus time, which is precisely what you need when things are still in flux and you cannot afford to wait for a perfect process before starting to measure progress.
Wei W.May 23, 2026Going with D here. The stem says the org is transitioning to agile but has no defined agile approach yet, so dropping a burndown chart on stakeholders who lack context will create more confusion than transparency. Until the team and stakeholders share a common understanding of what empiricism and working increments mean in practice, the chart is just noise.
Mei-Ling H.May 24, 2026Answer is A. The qualifier in the stem is transitioning, not fully transitioned, so the PM should still introduce agile practices incrementally rather than avoid them, and a burndown chart is a low barrier transparency tool that helps build that shared understanding Wei W. is worried about.