PMP · Question #1438
Due to unforeseen circumstances, a contractor was unable to mobilize the project team, which was necessary to conduct face-to-face meetings and discussions. Virtual meetings were subsequently put in p
The correct answer is C. Reassess continually to remove blockers for the team.. When a team faces a communication gap leading to low performance, the project manager should continuously reassess the situation and work to remove these impediments to facilitate effective communication and collaboration.
Question
Due to unforeseen circumstances, a contractor was unable to mobilize the project team, which was necessary to conduct face-to-face meetings and discussions. Virtual meetings were subsequently put in place, but the local project team and end users now face a communication gap that is causing the team's low performance. What should the project manager do?
Options
- AAsk the contractor to solve this problem because this is a contractual obligation.
- BTerminate the contract and initiate a new one with a local contractor.
- CReassess continually to remove blockers for the team.
- DImplement key performance indicators (KPIs) and convince the contractor to engage the team.
How the community answered
(43 responses)- A2% (1)
- B14% (6)
- C77% (33)
- D7% (3)
Why each option
When a team faces a communication gap leading to low performance, the project manager should continuously reassess the situation and work to remove these impediments to facilitate effective communication and collaboration.
While the contractor might have a contractual obligation, simply 'asking' them to solve it without proactive engagement from the PM to understand and resolve the communication gap is insufficient and avoids the PM's responsibility for team performance.
Terminating a contract is an extreme measure with significant cost and schedule implications; it is premature without first attempting to resolve the current communication issues through more collaborative means.
The communication gap is acting as a blocker (impediment) to the team's performance. In an agile environment, the project manager or Scrum Master's role is to facilitate the team and actively remove such impediments. Continuous reassessment allows for identifying evolving challenges and implementing adaptive solutions to bridge the communication gap, fostering better performance.
Implementing KPIs might track performance, but it doesn't solve the underlying communication gap itself. Convincing the contractor is part of the solution but not the sole action, and KPIs alone won't bridge the gap or remove the impediment.
Concept tested: Agile impediment removal and continuous improvement
Source: https://www.scrum.org/resources/what-is-a-scrum-master
Topics
Community Discussion
6Confirmed C on my exam last month. The stem is really pointing you toward servant leadership, where the PM removes blockers so the team can function. A and B jump straight to contractual nuclear options before the PM has even tried to address the communication gap. D sounds proactive but KPIs measure performance, they do not fix the underlying communication problem, so it is a distractor.
Saw this on my exam last month, picked C after D tempted me. Servant leadership wins.
Nice call on C. I have a card for servant leadership with the interval at 21 days because the concept is intuitive but the exact PMP wording trips people up, so make sure your card captures the PMI definition specifically, not just the general idea.
Leaned toward A first but PM owns team performance, not the contract. C.
C is correct because the PM owns removing blockers regardless of who caused them, and the exam almost always favors proactive reassessment over blame or contract escalation. One card I have flagged for this: does the PMs responsibility to remove impediments extend to contractor-caused issues, or is there a threshold where you push it back contractually? Still shaky on where that line gets drawn.
C wins, PM owns blockers. A is tempting but contractual finger pointing kills morale.