PMP · Question #565
A team is preparing the closing phase and building a plan for the next phase. One of the project sponsors is complaining that the last phase had some quality deliverable issues. However, the quality a
The correct answer is C. Schedule a quality review meeting and include the sponsor's complaints.. Even after formal quality acceptance, a project manager should address sponsor complaints about quality issues to maintain stakeholder satisfaction and learn from past problems.
Question
Options
- APostpone the next project phase until the impact of the quality issues is assessed.
- BReopen the quality acceptance documentation to add the sponsor's complaints.
- CSchedule a quality review meeting and include the sponsor's complaints.
- DReview best practices and lessons learned and apply them to the project plan.
How the community answered
(41 responses)- A7% (3)
- B12% (5)
- C78% (32)
- D2% (1)
Why each option
Even after formal quality acceptance, a project manager should address sponsor complaints about quality issues to maintain stakeholder satisfaction and learn from past problems.
Postponing the next phase is an overreaction and could cause unnecessary delays and cost overruns without first understanding the scope and impact of the issues.
Reopening formally signed acceptance documentation is generally not advisable as it undermines established change control processes and the authority of the original sign-off.
Scheduling a quality review meeting involving the sponsor directly addresses their concerns in a structured manner, allowing for investigation and potential resolution or documentation of the issues. This proactive engagement helps rebuild trust and demonstrates commitment to quality improvement, even if the formal acceptance was already signed.
Reviewing best practices and lessons learned is a good general practice for continuous improvement but does not directly address the specific sponsor's current complaint about a past phase's quality issues.
Concept tested: Stakeholder engagement and quality management
Source: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok/process-groups/project-quality-management
Topics
Community Discussion
8
Zlatan X.Feb 24, 2026C is correct. A signed acceptance document represents a closed component, so you do not reopen it; instead you schedule a quality review meeting to capture the sponsor's complaints as inputs for continuous improvement and benefits realization in the next phase.
Ingrid P.Mar 9, 2026C is correct. The signed acceptance document is closed, so you do not reopen it, but scheduling a quality review meeting lets you capture the sponsor's complaints and address them before the next phase kicks off. I made a card on this exact distinction: signed acceptance does not block a follow-up review, it just prevents option B.
Dervla O.Feb 19, 2026A is the right call here. The signed acceptance document means the phase formally closed, but the sponsor is flagging a real quality concern that could carry downstream risk into the next phase. You cannot responsibly kick off new work while a known quality issue from the prior phase is unassessed. Reopening the acceptance doc (B) or jumping straight to lessons learned (D) skips the critical step of actually understanding the impact before proceeding.
Ingrid P.Feb 22, 2026C is correct here. Once the acceptance document is signed the phase is formally closed, and a sponsor raising a concern at that point routes through change control or quality assurance processes, not a pause on the next phase kickoff.
Viktor S.Feb 27, 2026A. Signed acceptance doesn’t erase real quality risk, assess impact before phase two.
Ingrid P.Mar 1, 2026C is correct here. Signed acceptance is the point of formal closure and triggers the next phase, the impact assessment already happened during the acceptance process, so there is no lingering quality gate to satisfy.
Lena V.Mar 17, 2026D. Signed acceptance is closed. Lessons learned is where complaints go.
Zlatan X.Mar 19, 2026Good reasoning on closure, Lena, but the answer is C because complaints and grievances raised during closeout are a formal input to organizational process assets, not something that gets buried in lessons learned. Capturing them at the program level feeds back into governance and benefits realization for future components.