PMP · Question #177
An oil and gas project started without having acquired full funding for the project. The remaining funds were to be acquired during project execution. The acquisition of the remaining funds was delaye
The correct answer is B. Ensured the risk was adequately assessed and mitigated by the appropriate stakeholders.. To prevent project suspension due to delayed funding, the project manager should have ensured that the risk of funding acquisition was thoroughly assessed and appropriate mitigation strategies were in place.
Question
Options
- AEnsured the stakeholder anticipated obstacles to achieving financial closure on the remaining
- BEnsured the risk was adequately assessed and mitigated by the appropriate stakeholders.
- CEnsured the stakeholder who was providing additional funds remained interested in the project.
- DEnsured the project team monitored and reviewed the project risk register periodically.
How the community answered
(45 responses)- A7% (3)
- B78% (35)
- C2% (1)
- D13% (6)
Why each option
To prevent project suspension due to delayed funding, the project manager should have ensured that the risk of funding acquisition was thoroughly assessed and appropriate mitigation strategies were in place.
While stakeholders should anticipate obstacles, the PM's role is more active; it's not just about anticipation but ensuring proactive assessment and mitigation of risks.
The scenario describes a known financial risk (remaining funds to be acquired during execution) that materialized due to inadequate assessment and mitigation. A project manager's responsibility is to proactively identify such risks, assess their likelihood and impact, and work with relevant stakeholders to develop and implement mitigation plans to prevent or reduce their occurrence.
Ensuring a stakeholder's interest is part of stakeholder management, but it doesn't directly address the financial closure process or the mechanisms to secure funds, which is the root of the problem.
Monitoring the risk register is an ongoing activity, but the failure here was in the initial assessment and mitigation of a known, significant risk before it caused project suspension.
Concept tested: Proactive risk management and mitigation
Source: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/boards/get-started/identify-track-risk-impediments
Topics
Community Discussion
6
Ingrid P.Jul 1, 2026B is correct because funding gaps are a classic project risk that should have been identified in the risk register, quantified, and assigned a mitigation strategy before execution started. Make a card on this: if a scenario describes a foreseeable external dependency causing work stoppage, the answer is always about proper risk assessment and mitigation by stakeholders, not after-the-fact monitoring.
Lena V.Jul 1, 2026Agree on the risk register angle but the exam usually wants the specific next step the PM takes when the gap actually hits mid-execution, which is submit a change request to adjust the budget or scope, not just retroactively point at the register.
Lena V.Jul 5, 2026B is the right call. D is tempting since the risk register should be reviewed, but the real failure happened upstream, during risk assessment and mitigation by stakeholders, not during monitoring.
Toby R.Jul 5, 2026Saw this one on my exam last month, almost talked myself into D because monitoring the risk register sounds responsible. But the stem is really asking what should have been done upfront to prevent the funding delay, which points to B, assessing and mitigating the risk with the right stakeholders before execution started.
Ingrid P.Jul 7, 2026B is correct and your reading of the stem as a prevention question rather than a response question is spot on, so if you make a card for this one tag it with risk management and not risk response so the interval spacing keeps it away from the monitor-and-control questions it gets confused with.
Brenda K.Jul 5, 2026B is the quick win here, but would mitigation even fully prevent a funding delay?