The program manager plans to address a negative cost variance generating a red flag in the program management status report. What should the program manager do?

Question

Options

• AContact the project sponsors to present the details, impacts, and possible corrective actions
• BGather all the details, analyze impacts, determine corrective actions and present the findings to
• CWork with program sponsor to compile impact analysis data to obtain additional funding for the
• DAsk the program team to compile all details, analyze impacts, determine corrective actions and

• A
  5% (2)
• B
  74% (28)
• C
  5% (2)
• D
  16% (6)

Explanation

Option B is correct because the program manager's primary responsibility when a red flag arises is to personally own the analysis process - gather the details, assess impacts, and determine corrective actions - before escalating to sponsors or stakeholders. Presenting findings without first doing the groundwork would be premature and undermine the program manager's credibility.

Why the distractors fail:

• A skips the analysis phase entirely - going straight to sponsors without understanding the full picture is reactive and unprepared.
• C prematurely assumes the solution is more funding, and leans on the sponsor to do analytical work that is the program manager's job.
• D delegates the analytical work to the program team, which abdication of the program manager's core accountability - though the team may assist, the PM must lead and own the findings.

Memory tip: Think of it as "Gather → Analyze → Present" - the program manager always does the homework first. Whenever you see a choice that skips straight to presenting or escalating, or one that hands off responsibility to sponsors or team members, it's likely wrong.

No community discussion yet for this question.