PMP · Question #428
A project manager presented the project schedule to the mam stakeholders. They have requested that the project be completed two months earlier than the scheduled date. What should the project manager
The correct answer is A. Hold a stakeholder meeting to align timelines and scope expectations. When stakeholders request an accelerated timeline, the project manager should immediately hold a meeting to discuss and align timelines and scope expectations. This ensures that any changes are understood in terms of their impact on scope, cost, and quality, facilitating a collab
Question
A project manager presented the project schedule to the mam stakeholders. They have requested that the project be completed two months earlier than the scheduled date. What should the project manager do?
Options
- AHold a stakeholder meeting to align timelines and scope expectations
- BCrash the schedule to shorten the timeline while keeping the scope unchanged
- CUpdate the cost management plan to allocate more resources to the project to finish the scope
- DReduce the scope of the project by removing activities and shortening the timeline
How the community answered
(42 responses)- A74% (31)
- B7% (3)
- C2% (1)
- D17% (7)
Why each option
When stakeholders request an accelerated timeline, the project manager should immediately hold a meeting to discuss and align timelines and scope expectations. This ensures that any changes are understood in terms of their impact on scope, cost, and quality, facilitating a collaborative decision.
When stakeholders request a significant change like shortening the schedule, it's crucial to hold a meeting to discuss the implications with all key stakeholders. This allows the project manager to educate them on the trade-offs (scope, cost, quality), negotiate, and align expectations on what is realistically achievable, ensuring a collective decision is made before implementing any changes.
Crashing the schedule is a technique to shorten duration, but it often increases costs and risks. It should not be done without stakeholder alignment and understanding of its impact.
Updating the cost management plan to allocate more resources is a potential solution to shorten the schedule, but it's an action taken *after* stakeholder alignment on the necessity and impact of such a change, not the first step.
Reducing the scope is another technique to shorten the schedule, but like crashing, it requires stakeholder agreement and understanding of the impact on deliverables, making alignment the necessary first step.
Concept tested: Stakeholder management and change request process
Source: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stakeholder-engagement-communication-skills-5991
Topics
Community Discussion
8
Lena V.Jun 15, 2026A is the correct answer. The key here is that stakeholders are requesting a two-month reduction, which is a major change to the schedule baseline. Before crashing or fast-tracking anything, you need to get alignment on how this impacts scope, cost, and quality. PMP loves the "analyze impact then meet with stakeholders" sequence for change requests. B and C jump straight to execution without that alignment step, and D assumes scope reduction without stakeholder agreement.
Orla P.Jun 17, 2026Agree on A for the impact analysis sequence, but keep in mind that if this two-month reduction is being driven by stakeholders as a formal request, you are entering that change through the Perform Integrated Change Control process, and the analysis itself happens before the change is submitted, not after.
Luis F.Jun 29, 2026A is right but man the wording feels soft for what PMI usually wants. I almost picked B because crashing is literally the technique for finishing earlier with same scope, but I think they want you to talk to stakeholders first before touching the schedule.
Olusegun A.Jun 29, 2026Agreed on A, but the real tell is the word "negotiate" in the stem, which maps to Validate Scope and stakeholder engagement, not schedule compression.
Olusegun A.May 30, 2026I first leaned toward B because crashing is the textbook answer when someone says finish it faster with scope unchanged. But re-reading the stem, the key is that major stakeholders requested the change, which makes this a stakeholder engagement issue before it is a schedule compression technique. The PMBOK is clear that you do not unilaterally start crashing or adding resources without first sitting down with stakeholders to understand the request, confirm whether scope is truly fixed, and align on what the two-month reduction means for cost, quality, and risk. A is the only option that reflects that conversation before action.
Orla P.Jun 1, 2026Agreed on A, and the complementary angle is that this also mirrors what the exam usually wants when you see stakeholders requesting a change rather than the project manager identifying the need, which is a change request routed through perform integrated change control before anyone touches the schedule.
Orla P.Jun 10, 2026A. You dont just crash or cut scope without stakeholder alignment first.
Lena V.Jun 11, 2026Agreed, and the exam also expects you to document that alignment, not just get a verbal nod.