PMP · Question #503
While reviewing prototypes, the quality team found some deviations that do not affect the mam functionality but have the potential to be an issue in the future. To avoid major problems in the future,
The correct answer is C. Evaluate and initiate the change request process with the stakeholders. When quality findings indicate potential future issues requiring additional funds for corrective actions, and the project is already over budget, the project manager must formally evaluate and initiate a change request process.
Question
While reviewing prototypes, the quality team found some deviations that do not affect the mam functionality but have the potential to be an issue in the future. To avoid major problems in the future, the team recommends corrective actions that will require additional funds. The project is already struggling to stay on budget and has even used some of the contingency reserves. What should the project manager do?
Options
- AAsk the product designer why the deviation was not considered in the design phase
- BReport to the project sponsor that the product is working and the project is struggling with the
- CEvaluate and initiate the change request process with the stakeholders
- DAsk the quality team to discard the sample and test again with a new sample
How the community answered
(37 responses)- A19% (7)
- B5% (2)
- C68% (25)
- D8% (3)
Why each option
When quality findings indicate potential future issues requiring additional funds for corrective actions, and the project is already over budget, the project manager must formally evaluate and initiate a change request process.
Asking the designer why it wasn't considered is a reactive step that doesn't address the immediate need for a formal change process or decision-making regarding the identified issue.
Reporting only that the product is working and struggling with budget ignores the critical recommendation for corrective actions to prevent future issues and doesn't provide a solution.
The quality team's recommendation for corrective actions, especially those requiring additional funds, constitutes a change to the project baseline (scope, cost, or schedule). In such situations, the project manager's responsibility is to formally evaluate the impact of the proposed changes, initiate the change request process, and involve relevant stakeholders to make an informed decision on how to proceed.
Asking the quality team to discard and retest dismisses valid quality findings without proper investigation or addressing the underlying issue or recommendation.
Concept tested: Managing changes and quality findings
Source: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok/control-quality
Topics
Community Discussion
9
Grace U.Apr 16, 2026C is correct here. Since the corrective action requires additional funds and the project is already dipping into reserves, the only path forward is a formal change request so stakeholders can evaluate the impact together and decide how to proceed.
Luis F.Mar 23, 2026C. Saw this on my exam last month, change request is always the move.
Imani T.Mar 25, 2026Yeah C is right but heads up, the wording matters - theyll throw in a variant where it asks about an emergency change and the answer flips to execute first then document after.
Imani T.Mar 17, 2026Going with A. Root cause first, always. You fix the source before burning more reserves.
Grace U.Mar 18, 2026C is the right call here. The stem is asking about the immediate next step after an incident, and that means stabilization to stop the bleeding first, then root cause comes in the post-incident review.
Zlatan X.Apr 1, 2026C is the governance play here. When corrective actions require additional funds and the project is already dipping into contingency reserves, that is a formal change request scenario, not something the PM absorbs silently or escalates without a recommended path forward. The quality team flagged a latent risk to future benefits realization, so engaging stakeholders through the change control process ensures the funding decision gets made with full visibility of the cost-benefit tradeoff. One thing I am curious about: does the PMP exam expect you to treat management reserve as the next source when contingency is depleted, or is that purely a sponsor-level governance decision that
Anjali D.Apr 4, 2026Good catch on C being the governance move, and on the management reserve question, the exam treats it as a sponsor-level decision since management reserve is not under the PM's control, which is exactly why the change control process exists to route that ask properly.
Anjali D.Apr 20, 2026Our study group landed on A because if the design phase missed something that the quality team caught during prototype review, the PM needs to understand the root cause before spending money the project does not have. A few people in our group pushed for C, arguing that any additional funds require a change request, but we felt that jumping straight into the change process without knowing why the deviation happened would just burn through more reserves. One person wondered whether A sounds too blame-focused, but the question is about avoiding major problems, and tracing the gap back to design is the most direct way to do that. Has anyone seen
Grace U.Apr 21, 2026C is the right call here, and it is completely normal to want to investigate the root cause first. The thing is, any time a quality review identifies a gap that will require additional work or funds, the formal change request is the mechanism that triggers both the analysis and the funding conversation, so you are not skipping the investigation, you are just giving it the proper vehicle to happen.