PMP · Question #962
An internal process was recently introduced by the management team. The new process, however, has not added much value and is impacting the project's deliverables. What should the project manager do?
The correct answer is D. Negotiate with management and get the required process changed.. When a new internal process negatively impacts project deliverables and adds little value, the project manager should negotiate with management to have the process changed.
Question
Options
- AAllocate one team member who can focus only on process adherence.
- BEnsure that the team implements the process without delays in deliverables.
- CDiscuss this with the team and convince them to continue with the process.
- DNegotiate with management and get the required process changed.
How the community answered
(32 responses)- A25% (8)
- B6% (2)
- C13% (4)
- D56% (18)
Why each option
When a new internal process negatively impacts project deliverables and adds little value, the project manager should negotiate with management to have the process changed.
Allocating a team member to focus solely on process adherence would further strain resources and likely worsen the impact on deliverables, without addressing the root problem of a valueless process.
Forcing the team to implement a counterproductive process without delays ignores the core issue and can lead to burnout, decreased morale, and continued negative impact on project outcomes.
Discussing and convincing the team to continue with a process that is known to be detrimental is counterproductive and undermines the project manager's role in removing impediments.
If a process is negatively impacting project deliverables and not adding value, the project manager's responsibility is to address this impediment directly with the management team who introduced it, seeking a change.
Concept tested: Project Manager's role in process improvement and impediment removal
Topics
Community Discussion
10
Zlatan X.Dec 2, 2025D is correct. At the program altitude we treat any internal process as a component dependency that must enable benefits realization, so when it erodes deliverable value you escalate through governance and negotiate the change with management rather than forcing compliance.
Mei-Ling H.Dec 4, 2025Agreed on D, but the key word in the stem is "negotiate" not "escalate" because governance is the channel, not the decision-maker, and that distinction is what trips people up between C and D.
Ingrid P.Dec 9, 2025Went with A. If the process is dragging deliverables down, dedicating one person to own process adherence isolates the overhead so the rest of the team keeps delivering, and that dedicated resource becomes your evidence base for a future conversation with management about whether the process is actually worth keeping. Worth a card on the pattern: when a new internal process hurts delivery, the first move is containment through role isolation, not escalation.
Zlatan X.Dec 12, 2025Actually it is D. At the program level you do not isolate process overhead onto one person, you escalate the issue through governance so the right stakeholders can evaluate whether the process itself needs to change, since a single resource cannot fix a systemic constraint that is affecting multiple components.
Mateus R.Dec 12, 2025B. Management owns process, PM owns deliverables. You work around it, not over it.
Zlatan X.Dec 13, 2025Good distinction on ownership, Mateus, but D is correct here because the question is testing escalation within program governance when a process constraint blocks component deliverables, not workaround tactics. At program altitude you escalate through the governance structure so the issue gets tracked as a dependency risk, not buried inside a single project.
Yuki V.Nov 16, 2025Going with C here. The PMs job is to work through the team first, and since the process is already introduced you dont go straight to management picking a fight, you get the team aligned and keep things moving while you figure out next steps.
Zlatan X.Nov 17, 2025D is correct here, Yuki. The key is that component-level disputes that threaten benefits realization and cross-component interdependencies require program-level governance escalation, not just team facilitation, because the program manager owns alignment across the portfolio.
Mei-Ling H.Nov 21, 2025A. The word 'should' plus impact on deliverables means assign one owner.
Zlatan X.Nov 21, 2025D is correct here. The question is about risk response strategy ownership at the program level, not deliverable accountability, so the key is that the risk owner develops the response plan and coordinates it across interdependent components.