PMP · Question #584
A company has appointed a supplier to deliver software and has assigned an internal project manager. The supplier states that no technical development or testing is required from the customer. The…
The correct answer is A. Host an alignment session with stakeholders to formalize the project requirements. Before proceeding with a supplier's claim about no customer involvement, the internal project manager must first convene an alignment session with stakeholders to confirm and formalize project requirements.
Question
A company has appointed a supplier to deliver software and has assigned an internal project manager. The supplier states that no technical development or testing is required from the customer. The project manager would like to confirm this with all of the stakeholders. What should the internal project manager do first?
Options
- AHost an alignment session with stakeholders to formalize the project requirements.
- BDevelop a user acceptance testing plan to ensure the quality of the deliverables.
- CCommunicate to the supplier that customer testing is required.
- DDistribute the project plan to all of the interested parties.
How the community answered
(49 responses)- A84% (41)
- B2% (1)
- C10% (5)
- D4% (2)
Why each option
Before proceeding with a supplier's claim about no customer involvement, the internal project manager must first convene an alignment session with stakeholders to confirm and formalize project requirements.
Hosting an alignment session with stakeholders is the crucial first step to ensure everyone agrees on the requirements and their respective responsibilities, especially regarding the customer's role in development and testing. This proactively addresses potential misunderstandings and formalizes expectations, which directly contradicts the supplier's statement.
Developing a UAT plan is a subsequent step, contingent on the customer's agreed-upon involvement in testing, which is currently in question.
Communicating to the supplier that customer testing is required without first confirming this with internal stakeholders might be premature and could lead to conflict if internal agreement is not secured.
Distributing a project plan that might not reflect stakeholder agreement on key responsibilities like testing would be ineffective and could exacerbate misalignments.
Concept tested: Stakeholder alignment and requirements formalization
Topics
Community Discussion
7
Samuel O.Jun 17, 2026A is the right call here. In my experience, when a vendor claims the customer does not need to be involved in technical development or testing, you absolutely cannot just take that at face value. Hosting an alignment session gets all the stakeholders and the supplier in a room to formalize the actual project requirements and verify what the customer is truly on the hook for. B is premature since you need agreed-upon requirements before drafting a UAT plan, and C jumps straight to a demand without first establishing the facts with your own team.
Bao N.Jun 27, 2026I first leaned toward C because the supplier saying no testing is required from the customer felt like a red flag to push back on immediately. But re-reading the stem, the PM wants to confirm this with all stakeholders, which means you need alignment before making any demands. A is the move because you have to get everyone in a room and formalize what the requirements actually are before you can determine whether testing is needed or not. B and D both skip the alignment step entirely, which is why they trip people up.
Viktor S.Jun 23, 2026A is the right call because before you formalize anything or push back on the supplier, you need to get all the stakeholders on the same page about what the supplier actually said and what it means for the project. The supplier claiming no customer involvement in testing is a big deal and could bite you later if stakeholders have different expectations about acceptance criteria or support. Hosting an alignment session lets you surface those assumptions and confirm the requirements together rather than acting unilaterally. Saw this one on my exam last spring and almost jumped to B because testing plans always sound responsible in PMP land. Re-read the
Nina C.Jun 25, 2026Good call on A, Viktor, and the B trap is real because testing plans feel like the responsible answer, but I would add that the alignment session also buys you documented consensus you can point back to if the supplier later tries to say they never agreed to revised expectations.
Grace U.Jun 27, 2026A is the right call here because before you can formalize requirements or challenge the supplier's claim, you need to get everyone on the same page about what is actually being delivered. It makes sense to wonder though, if the supplier is handling all development and testing, what exactly does the customer need to verify during that alignment session to avoid surprises later?
Nina C.Jun 30, 2026I first leaned toward B because my teacher brain went straight to testing, but then I realized the supplier just said no testing is needed and the PM wants to confirm that with stakeholders. That makes A the right call since you need to get everyone aligned on what the supplier is actually claiming before you build a UAT plan around an assumption.
Viktor S.Jul 2, 2026Right, A first because you confirm the claim, but the real reason it transfers to the job is that a supplier saying no testing needed is itself a risk you document, not just a scheduling convenience.