PMP Practice Question: People — Predictive, Medium
You are managing a manufacturing project following a predictive life cycle. During a milestone review, you discover that one of your team leads has consistently overstated the completion percentage of their work packages in status reports. Upon investigation, you find the actual progress is about 20% behind what was reported, though the work quality is acceptable. This team lead has been with the company for 15 years and is generally reliable. The project is now showing as on-track when it is actually behind schedule. What should be your first course of action?
Study this topic
- 📖Managing Project Team Performance and Accountability
Master the frameworks and techniques for driving team performance, establishing accountability, and creating high-performing project teams aligned with PMBOK 8th Edition principles.
- 📖How Long to Study for PMP: A Realistic Timeline
Discover realistic PMP study timelines based on your experience level, work schedule, and learning style—plus proven strategies to optimize your preparation.
- 🗂️Flashcards: Leadership, Team & Stakeholder Models
15 cards · quick recall practice
More People Questions
View all →You are leading a manufacturing facility construction project following a predictive lifecycle. The project team consists of 15 members, including contractors and internal staff. After three months of work, you receive feedback from several team members that the weekly status meetings are too long and not productive. Team members feel they spend too much time listening to updates irrelevant to their work. The meetings currently last 90 minutes and cover all work packages. What is the best approach to address this concern?
A cross-functional agile team is preparing for their next sprint. During sprint planning, the QA specialist expresses concern that the team has been committing to user stories without adequately considering testing effort. She feels that her input is often sought too late in the process, after developers have already estimated and committed to stories. This has resulted in quality issues and testing becoming a bottleneck in the last two sprints. The team wants to improve but is unsure how to better integrate QA perspective earlier. What should the team do?
Your organization is piloting agile practices within traditionally predictive portfolios. You're leading a hybrid project with a co-located agile team and distributed predictive workstreams across three continents. After four months, you notice the agile team has strong cohesion and high performance, but the distributed predictive teams report feeling disconnected and undervalued. Several key resources from the predictive workstreams have requested transfers, citing lack of engagement. Executive stakeholders are questioning whether the hybrid approach is sustainable. What is the MOST effective way to address this disparity?