You're managing a product development project using a hybrid approach where research and design follow a stage-gate process, while development and testing use Scrum. The design team has just completed the design phase and handed off detailed specifications to the development team. During sprint planning, the development team identifies several design elements that are technically infeasible with current technology and proposes alternative approaches that would require design changes. The design lead is resistant, stating that the design was approved through the formal gate review and shouldn't change without going back through governance. What should you do?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is B. Option B is correct because it balances governance requirements with adaptive practices by bringing the teams together to understand the issues and jointly determine the appropriate decision-making path. Some changes may be implementation details suitable for team-level decisions, while others may affect the approved design intent and require formal review. This collaborative approach respects both the stage-gate governance and the team's technical expertise, leading to the best outcome. Option A ignores technical reality and wastes effort building something known to be problematic. Option C undermines necessary governance—not all design changes are implementation details, and some may affect approved scope, budget, or stakeholder commitments. Option D escalates prematurely without first attempting to resolve the issue at the appropriate level or understanding whether escalation is truly needed.

PMP Practice Question: Process — Hybrid, Medium

More Process Questions